The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-10

without Jury, and 1t was a In which the entire
onus OIL the decision was elt WIN the Court.
Mr. sterling before leaving was asked by ona M
Judge Barnard'S COUNSEL
q. Had you any conversation with anv persons
about appearance here before coming before this
cOmmtteeY A. Yes; was spoken to by Mr. Albert
Suckney and Mr.. john Parsons the counsel Tor the
Bar Association, who told me that need not pay
any attention 20 the subpoena as they would tell me
when was wanted on the stand; they sald 1--WE
want 70 keep the committee mere; we want to pro-
must be able to snow subp9nas OF witnesses whose
attendance we have not oeen able to procnre.n
The above remarks OF the witness created con-
siderable sensation among the few members OF the
committee present.
A clerk employed by the firm OF Field 4 Shear
man was then examined about g0ing 10 Albany To
serve papers on dinerent parties.
/ About one hour was then passed In idleness wait
ing tor q witness, wnen at last Mr. sherman. Q
partner In the nrm OF Field Il Sherman, arrived.
testimony ' OF Mr. Sterling, and also added that
Judge Barnard mad never decided a case IN their
favor when they appeared Tor the Erie Railway
Company; that he had never met Juuge Barnard IN
private life; had never met MIN in company with
Fisk and Gould; that ne aid not Ike having 70
only been to Judge Barnard's house once. and that
was to obtain al order which he was refused, and
ElInira rather than have 1t before Judge Barnard.
This closed the examination OF Mr.. Shearnan. and,
journ eii until il ha nfI past SIS seven p H.
The COMMITTEES gos,to work again at half-pass
a put M '" on tne sa1 ns
L0wery, counsel for tine Pacific Mall COMPANY. Mr..
LOwery gave evidence In the case or Goddard VS..
Stanwood, which came up In 1859 before Judge
Barnard, involvlng the claim for the sum OF 5000.
OF the Pacific Mail Company. Upon APP
plication OF one OF the claimants Judge
Barnard granted an ex parie injunction
from paying over the money. Upon further aDpll-
cation Judge Barnard vacated his Injunction, and
then the Pacific Mail Company refused to pay over
the money.
The evidence elected from the witness did not
tend to prove any irregular conduct on the part
OF Judge Barnard, ana Messrs. Stckney and Par
sons subsidized.
AS there were no more witnesses to examine the
man, and made motion that IN the charges pre-
1erred against Judge Barnard which are now being
investigated there are many which date back pre-.
vtOus to the term Of ONCE which ne now fllls.
gave In the early part OF 1865 when he was only
elected to his present position In the tail Of 1868 aud
took the OaCh Of office IN January, 1869. 1t was
claimed by the counsel for the defence tnat
in the charges occurring In MS previous term OF
office which could not be easily refured aud ex-
planned, yet they denied the right Of the committee
to impeacn or remove an officer elected by the
ance Of the present term Of Office which he now
nils. It also urged by the counsel for the de-
fence that II they could try Judge barnard Tor acts
alleged 70 have been performed while Judge OF the
Supreme Court during his previous term they might
with equal propriety try and remove him for acts
done during the time he was Recorder OF the city
OF New YORK.
the committee was rather taken aback at this
grave Importance. as they requested the counse on
both sides TO prepare and present 10 them written
briefs upon tns subject on or before Friday next.
AS there were no more witnesses 10 be examined
the committee adjourned further Investigation
til Friday at ten A. NJ. The members oil the Judici-
airy Committee will proceed to Albany this evening.