The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-23

A Complaint Against Judge
McCunn. 3.
Examination of Several Wit
neSSeS.
The Case of Clark Against
BininEer.

The Case of Clark Against
IsininEer.
The Judiciary Committee met yesterday morning
at ten O'Clock shortly after thai hour Judge Nc
Cunn Of the Superior Court, arrived In answer to
| subpoena which had been served on him to appear
In answer to a complaint preferred by a Mr. Mac
donald. Messrs. Stickney and Parsons. OF the Bar
| Association, were present, and although they did
not prefer any charge they assisted In the prosecu
| ton. M
The complaint was In relation to the Of A. B.
| Clark vs. A. B. Bininyer. The plaintin alleged he
had been doing business In partnership with Bin
niger and the term OF the articles OF copartnersh1p
HAD expired. Bintnger claimed to be sole owner
Of the stock and threatened to put him
out. Plainin the applied for q receiver
TO Judge McCunn, who granted the appca-
ton, and appointed Mr.. Hanrahan. Btnlnger,
feeling aggreved. moved to set aside the appoint
ment OF the receiver The motion was argued be-
fore Judge Fithian at Special Term. Judge Fithian
decided that the receiver was properly appointed.
Hardy, Blake Co., creditors Of Binnger Co.,
then fled petition In bankruptcy, alleging that
they were creditors to considerable amount. An
injunction was then granted by Judge
McCunn, from the Superior Court to stay
proceedings in bankruptcy. The Bank Of
America, who were creditors were en-
joined and 0beyed. Ives, Beecher b Co., other
creditors, were also enlolned, but dis0beyed John
s. Beecher, OF the above firm, was appointed as
signee IN bankruptcy, The United States Marshals
came 10 the store Of Bininger Co., on the corner
oil Thames and Liberty street, to take possession OF
the propery by order OF the assianee. They
were put out Of the store by tine receiver,
but finally by force obtained Joint possession. An
application was then made to The District and Cir
cult Court OF the United States for a peremptOry
order TO the marshals to remove the receiver. The
case occasioned some very extended argument on
botn sides Oh the question or
Comfy RELATION
between the State and the federal courts, or the
Court OF It's possession In property. Judge Elatch
ford decided that The District Court OIL the United
States, being Court OF superior supervisory
| Jurisdction mad no power to interfere and disturb
| the possession OF tae State Court, thus confirming
perlor Court wnen he took upon himself 10 enjoin
Inc bankruptcy proceedings.
Judge McCunn appeared before the committee
without any counsel, and when asked If he did not
Intend to appoint some member OF the Bar to
sent his interests lie stated that his action IN the
case was quite straightforward, ana II he had acted
| wrong he was willing to bear the consequences lie
was que satisfied that the committee would treat
him With equity ana justice. He also added that,
he mad been given considerable notorIety on the
subject, ne was glad TO have the investigation CON-
| The first witness called was Mr.. Ward, q clerk
In the Superior Court, VINO was examined IN refer.
ence to some OF tile documents connected with the
Mr.; Abraham B. Clark the plaintiff in the case
|
counsel applied for an Injunction to restrain
Blnlnger carrying on the business, and also for
on w sppon %ae nsge The appca;
his residence Oh Twenty-nrst street. Judge
McCunn looked over the papers and
which was done ana the injunction was granted.
Mr.. Murray Hoffman was proposed as receiver by
Judge McCunn but at the suggestion OF Mr.. Comp
ton. counsel for the Witness Mr. Hanrahan was
substituted and consequently appointed. the wilt
| ness asked Judge McCunn II he would accept the
present OF demDohn oil brandy, but Inc latter de-
clined. Mr.. Clark stated that he had the highest
opinion OF Judge McCunn. r
AR. Marshall compton. counsel for Mr. Clark tes-
TILED 10 same purport as the last witness, and also
order Tor counsels' fees in the question.
Inc next witness was Mr.. Francis n. Bangs, who
had been employed as counsel In the suit. Witness
gave an account OF the different orders that were
granted III both Courts. and also short sketch OF
re s Mr. sa"sa also slated inc tn sGn
had been alleged That Judge McCunn had
being without The slightest foundation ana iurtner
| lie considered that the charge implicated himself
he as as u. Sn% cSaay TO Dae
it would nave been for such transaction TO have
Of enecsd without MS knowledge and to the
iecty upright ana straightforward manner through.
auctioneer by the receiver stared that he had heard
through his partners taat Mr.. Hanrahan was going
also johnston & Van Tasseli aud Leeds Il Miner. NV
terms were lower than the others and they were
March. About the 10th OF March MIR. Hanranan Is
stock was In the store IN Liberty street,
and the sale had been largely advertised on
the Both OF March Judge Jones, OF the Superior
Court, grained an pdIte order stopping the sale.
On the same day l made an application
through counsel before Judge McCunn to allow
the sale TO proceed, ana the order was
granted. claimed that the delay would cause
considerable pecunlary loss to the estate. as many
buyers were already Ia the CITY, and they would not
wait another day. Judge McCunn's order directed
| the receiver to proceed with the sale and deposit
the proceeds IN the safe keeping OF the United
| States Trust Company.
mr. James f. Morgan, who acted as counsel for
| the receiver, then came forward ana produced
his bank book ana checks issued since 1854 Witness
was also examined IN regard TO the references
| which he had received from Judge McCunn since
! 1864. lie stated tlat he mad never been apponte ed
| OF counsel representing the disputlng parties
all the ices he mad received from sucn appoint
| ments did not exceed So, 500 lie also stated that
although he had repeatedly been requested TO an.
| pear as counsel LII cases before Judge McCunn he
had invariably declined, Tor fear such action should
| be mlslnterpreted.
Mr.. Thomas Darlington was present with a bundle
OF documents In reference to the Bininger case but
| was not examined. ~
Mr.. Honermeyer sonin.aw OF Mr.. Clarke, the
palntlf in the suit, was the only witness examined
| during the evening session. lie was xamined in
reference TO u statement made TO MIN by Judge
| McCunn to the effect that he Judge McCunn) would
stand by clarke. The witness testified that this re-
mark made in reference 10 the Jurisdiction OF
| tile two courts.
| The committee adjourned the case OF Judge Nc
| Gum SINE de, and VIII resume the examination OF
the charges against Judge Barnard this morning, al