The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-06
Close Of the Case for the People ard an Early
Termination Of The Respondents Efforts.
Judge Earnard's Admiration
of Erie Chairs.
"Reminiscences Of the Foley Injunction
Against r. B. c., the Patriot, and
Scraps Of Facts from Chambers.
the GREAT P.AsTERER a NON EST MaR.


The Court met at ten a. H., with thirty members
present.
BENJAMIN Wright was sworn IL was partner OF
Culver Mt the time q receiver was appointed In the
case OF Emendorf VS. Savage; Ira Shafer appeared
rs counsel for defendants; DO not consider $500
an exorbitant charge for Shafer's services To Mr..
Parsons--We Opposed the allowance, as matter or
course-that was our duty; still think 1t was
fair charge for his services; he occupied about
m hour in arguing, but he was engaged otherwise,
and think his services were worth $500.
TO Mr.. Beach-It was upon the position assumed
by Shafer that the Court reached its decision.
Ira Shafcr was sworn, and detailed the circum-
stances Of the case of Elmendorf VS.. Savage and
Others in which the articles OF impeachment charge
Judge Barnard with making excessive allowances.
Witness stated that he obliged to attend Court
nifty or sixty times and he charged for his services
$500, which, he thought, was not an excessive
charge. He also attended the Court on the trial,
and for that also he charged $500. Finally Judge
Barnard passed on his charges, and allowed $500;
the entire fund in litigation amounted to about
$50 coo; have reference to the fund the receiver
nad on hand when WAS called IN; was counsel
Witness detailed the circumstances OF this case,
and said the orders in the case were granted by
Judge Barnard after very full inquiry on his part
ms to its being proper case in which he should
act; In obtaining these ordelsI
NEVER MADE ANY APPEAL TO JUDGE BARNARD
on the ground OF our social or other relations we
were warm personal friends; have no personal
knowledge OF the stock OF these roads being
affected by these proceedings; have only hearsay
knowledge and what l have seen in the news
papers; i have examined The stock reports since
the proceedings commenced
Mr.. Parsons objected to taking this evidence.
Mr. Beach said similar evidence had been taken
on the other side.
MIR. Parsons denied that any such evidence had
been taken.
thorough enough to Amount to anything, and his
examination on the point terminated.
Mr.. Parsons then cro5s-eSamined the witness,
and he said he went to New York to engage in bust
ness with James H. Coleman; continued with him
Barnard in S FIRST saW FISK in sSe in his %
vate box in the opera house; had only one
PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH JAY GOULD,
and only two with Fisk when Fisk and Gould sued
Judge Barnard Tor conspiracy ! appeared for
Judge Barnard as attorney; that was in 1868; that
prior to the Union Pacific and susquehanna Rail
road cases; do not remember when first heard Of
the intimacy between Fisk, Gould and Barnard !;
did not act as counsel for Barnard in any case OF
charged conspiracy In 1867; during the frst year
was In New York never saw Judge Barnard any,
where except IN court or In the street; did not see
him during that period in
J. M'BRIDE DAvIDsos's SAFE STORE;
there was 10 barro0m in OF Davidson's store
kept by Davidson; Davidson was man OF great
sociabty, and he kept in his Office, In the rear OF
his store, those articles usually to be found as the
accompaniment OF sociability; have been there at
times to participate IN the use OF those articles;
never saw Judge Barnard there more than twice.
witness then detailed the circumstances OF the
allowances in the case OF Elmendorf vs.. Savage,
Gus and Of long duration. Witness explained that
he received $500 in the preliminary matter and
$500. for services on the trial. being $1,000 in All
David Dudley Field, J. X Porter aud many others
were on the other side; prepared the complaint
In the case OF Bright versus
THE MuwAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILROAD;
never said to Bangs that the order appointing
Sweeny receiver was an extraordinary order;
eaid it was novel order; regard 1t as an Illus
trous precedent; It waspovel for the reason that
state; this was what made Judge Barnard hesitate.
and cited to him precedent; 1t was the appoint
mcnt OF a receiver OF tie Erie Railroad-an old
case; do not remember now what was the title OF
the case; the Erie Railroad having property In
other states would be precedent; | think Judge
he would not have had jurisdicton the
In 81 New eve or Wines sse IL
took place before Judge Barnard when he applied
Paul Railroad, and also for the order appointing
receiver. He stated the case clearly III each case
ceiyer, and the Judge granted his application in
both cases. Cannot say why 1t was Judge Barnard
gave the order without ample security; ] was
under the impression there was sufficient security
provided for; left the papers TO be prepared by
my CLERK and Thought he had properly prepared
taking, think: at all events he granted the order,
why lie GRANTED THE ORDER
upon insufficient security; did not know that
Bright had an attorney in New York; he was intro
daced to me by Gilbert; Of Albany; nothing was
to mc--not word; subsequently Judge Barnard
vacated those portions OF the order which he at
first hesitated about, and which he considered de-
batabe grounds, ana those were appointing re-
ceiver 70 take hold and manage the road; had
time he was made receiver; did not suggest his
name; Judges appoint their own oiflcerS OF that
kind; knew sweeny was q brother OF Peter b.
Sweeny, prominent New York politician.
To Mr. Beach, do not understand that 1t Is absO-
1utely necessary TO have security in Injunction
cases when the order setting aside portions OF the
original receiver order was made the receiver gave
ms bonds; have been engaged in very bitter suits
the Erie Railroad fed to Jersey city; these suits
were before Judge Barnard; | remember the Foley
inlunction against Connolly and other city author
Mr.. Parsons objected to this evidence as ir-
relevant.
The Chair decided that IL was so far only "a con-
nected witness with them
Mr.. Beacl-Who was the Judge granting the in
junction IN That case
Wltncss-Judge Barnard.
Mr. Beacf-Was there not very heated litigation
In the case
Mr. Parsons again objected saying these suits
were wen understood, and lf the case was TO be
opened II would open wide inquiry.
MIR, Beacl--ls IL not proper 10 show that Tweed
and others with whom respondent Is charged with
conspiring bitterly opposed and resisted these in
The Chair admitted it, and witness stated that
TWEED AND CONNOLLY
both opposed the action OF Barnard with much heat
DR.. iienfy r. Quackenbush was sworn, and esti-
Ned That Davidson, sturteyant. Barnard and him;
said TO Fisk, "Why would not such chairs do for
parIor chairs ~ Fisk said they were too cumber-
some; Barnard said he liked them, and wanted TO
know whether he could get some like them; Fisk
sala "fes;n Barnard asked what they cost, ana
fIsk SAID 800 piece" but said he could get them
ior nm II he wanted them at $50 piece; Judge
barnard then said lie wanted q dozen, with his
taonogram ON instead of that ''E. RI; he then
turned about and paid Fisk for the chairs and we
left shortly after.
Crosscxamihed by Mr.. Parsons-Y nave long
known Judge Barnard, and am a warm personal
friend and adnirer OF his.
Witness was then closely examined as 10 WHY he
ana INC party went 10 the l-rie ONCE, wheYe they
went aftefward and who was present. but no,iiny
material wac elected. Witness said they went TO
the Erie Office IN Dayidsons carriage at his invita-