New-York tribune., 1872-03-28
TIE BARNARD MHEsTIGAEION.

JUDGE SUTHERLAND AND THE FOLEY INJCNC-
IIoN-TEsTMONY OF DAVID DUDLEY FIELD
THE UNION PACIFIC LITIGATION-FIELD Ao
BARNARD's PROSECUTOR.
It was expected that the Judiciary investi-
CATION would be concluded last night 40 far Judge
Barnard WIS concerned. but two three wit
nesses yet remain TO be examined If they.
however are called to-day. the Committee will
probably leave for Albany in the evening
returning 10 resume the against Judge McCunn to
ward the close Of next week
william c. Barrett was placed on the stand at his
request yesterday TO testify in relation TO the crcum
stances Of the granting of the Foley nunctonJudge
Sutherland having selected him to refute testimony OF
J. straham published in Of the newspapers. Wit
ness that the testimony given untrue Jugde
Sutherland called upon him relation 10 the
ter on the first Wednesday In September. 1871 upon
which occasion witness suggested that II Suther
land should grant the application 1t might
prejudice his chances for denomination, and it
was agreed that application should be made
10 another Judge. Witness then consulted with
J. Il. straham, Controller Green's counsel, and his
own nephew, George c. Barrett. who OF th9
principal applicants for the Injunction and told them
that he thought II would be agreeable II the app
cation was not made 70 sutherland Messrs Srahan and
G. c. Barrett insisted that they wanted the injunction
immediately and the following Thursday agan applied
at sutherland's house 10 have the IN unc
ton granted, but told that the Judge
was Dick-they then went TO IDgrahams house, but he
was out Of town, and returning afcrward 10 suther
lands house they learned that he also was ont OF the
CITY having gone Hudson TO be absent several days
Barnard was to hold Chambers the Wednesday follow
ing but happened be absent from the city; stra-
han and Barrett then succeeded In finding sutherland
and explaining the situation TO him. asked him 70 DE IN
court the next morning. that In Barnard failed 10
return he (Suherland might hold Chambers 5utheraud
accordingly present but Barnard was on the bench
and heard the application; witness stared emphhlcay
that Sutherland manifested no disposition to eyade re-
sPOns6y ana Se96re s@6 ne sbStbef Idre 10
Crosse xaInned by Robert strahan o. the Sonmtice;
o How many times did you Apply 10 Judge outherl"hu
for an injunction A. Four times -,
nard made decision from corrupt or improper mo-
tiyesI A. OF my own personal knowledge do not.
David Dudley Field called at II a. m and at 1890
p n the hour at which the Committee adjourned, MS
testimony was yet incomplete He gave the history Of
the Union Pacific litigation already published III & IhE
ment sudge Bardard's course emnenty proper;
that all the orderf granted by him were esa ai s.s-
Gliding the appointment of William NJ Tweedjr, as Re
ceiver and that they we're made necessary y,e 10y tn
contnmacy and defiance the defendants VINO insisted
that The acton was transferred 10 the Circuit Court OF
the United states. and that all Barnard5 M
were nugatOry. MI Field was asked whether, IN Il7
u, nnn % an ~ afsdayit OF James Fisk IT, informa-
tion and beief was justifable He answers Yes" The
witness was then questioned as 10 his opinion on the
conduct Of his firm In sending pnd ars Sn,,V
requiring the clerks assembled there 70 very IT, anu O
t%ston under the names OF John Doe and Richard Roe
Witness answered that neither the appcation no tOo
order furnished cause for criticism or censure
Mr Field also asserted that the statement mace Dy
pre- vious witness, that James Fisk r settled he snts
In the Summer OF 1868 for t5O,OO was uttefly
neon pre hensible 10 him. He was then examined
al great length show whether ne iseu subsequent
IN fhe first Erie litigation when all or Barhards orders
were against Fisk and Could and prior 70 the Albany
and susquehanna ltigatOn Ia whlch larnaIu lar d
were IA cora BILE Fisk and Gould, had not prepared
articles OF impeachment against Barnard i0r ihiseo-
duct il office. Mr. Field did not deny thas
he had prepared papers but refused 70 give any m
formation on the ground nat he was projected Ny MS
nrofessinnI Ob cations 10 Fisk and Could The question
whether or not Mr. Field should be compelled TO give
the desired information was pending "hen the CObt
tee adjourned. -, ,s... O., ,o..,,,
william f. Howe called by the defense 10 tes'iiy
TO the release OF repeaters from BiacAwes ASia "
Barnard. Hl1 testimony was unlnportaht