The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-05
TIE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
The Investigation OF the Charges
Against the Judges.
Examination of Witnesses In The Case Of
Judge CardOzO.
Judge McCunn aud the Clarke
Bininger Suit.

who resumed yesterday their Investigations INTO the
charges against the judges How long these nves-
legations are 10 continue ana what other judges ara
yet to be summoned be ore this House committee Is
question shrouded In IN atmosphere OF secrecy,
and known only to the happy few who are intimate
with the powers behind The throne. II Ia believes
That the committee have finished the examinations
OF the charges against Judge Barnard, AMI yester~
day morning they commenced operations with
Judge Cardozo by hearing the testimony
OF Terence Farley in relation to pecu.
liar coincidence regarding their bank
accounts. II appears that on February 81 Mr.
Farley drew Sl,450 IRON his bank In bills, and on
FEBRUARY % Judge Cardozo made deposit OF q
IKE amount IN ms Dank. These facts put together'
had rather an ugly appearance, ana consequently
Judge Cardozo calico Mr.. Farley to explain mis- side
OF the transaction. Mr.. Farley stated that drew
81, 400 from his bank the 2lst OF February, and
made use OF That sum TO pay OIL his iaborers with
the exception OF $50, which ne sent 10 his fatherss
This explanation appeared to satisfy the
ahmed in relauon to the different recelvershipss
10 which ne had been appointed by Judge Card0zo-
Mr. Farley stated that he was an intimate polltlcaI
friend OF Judge Cardozo, aud that no had giveE
him his support when he ran for office. tic alsOt
said Judge Cardozo had appointed him receiver on
several OCCASIONS, but there never had been any
pecuniary TRANSACTIONS between them.
Judge Cardozo was then examined IN relation tQ
SUIT brought by James e. McVeany against Peter
Cnkln ana the people. II was alleged mat thiE
an ssen Se JUICE
that wnen heard before the latter ha
mad acted improperly IN wit with nus de~
The following WAS then produced by Judge Car.
dozo:-
Hon. ALBEIT CARDozo, Justice of Supreme Court i
mated A yoa guilty. ' mproSsy wsoas s
cson in case Of FOR mandamns aAs the drs oppof}
and njus! ana Wake th liberty q mat
judge and have no cause Of compliant, Very espsStfTyt
fully the above, and WIN appear anywhere "a
confirm IT, Very respectfully om pAy ,d MSAnAvM
In the meantime Judge McCunn, who had also
been summoned TO appear, was fdling away his
Time IN the reading room but showing no outward
about to go through. III fact, he appeared TO bel
highly entertained win some OF the leading articles
reisl Shorll after twelve, however, the commit
Tee, having disposed OF Judge Caraozo resumed
their examination Of the Clarke vs.. Bnniasef case,
and Judge McCunn entered the sacred portals OF the
committee room with sprisntlY ar and
appeared TO be conducting the prosecution, was
assisted by Messra. StiCkney and Parsons, OF the
Bar Association. Judge McCunn appea AIRED without
counsel as he said he was perfectly satisfied to let
the examination DC conducted by the committees,
VINO could decide on the case ny the evidence pro-
duced. Before the Investigation commenced Judge
McCunn requested ,tc permission Of the committees
TO inquire as 70 whether Colonel Harrison, the gen
tlenan wno was 50 actively engaged la prosecuting
these EXAMINATIONS INTO his career as Judge OF
the superior Court, had not al time oliciated In
the capacity VI private secretary TO
JEFFERSON DAVIS.
As Colonel Harrison did not make any reply. tho
Judae continued by making application TO the com.
mittee 10 permit him 10 oner III evidence portion
Of the report Of The Congressional Committee OF
whole number OF men furnished by tne c,ty aud
county Of New FORK Tor the federal service was
AS $40; That joan II. McCunu furnished 1000 IRISH
men to the lhirty-seventh New YORK volunteers
without having received one cent from the governs
ment, state, Guy or federal authorities"
Mr. Prince. the chairman ol The comInitJee, said
that there was no reason to MAKE any OBJECTION to
receiving the above report and at some future state
OF the proceedings they would accept It,
The first witness called was Mr. George N. Titus.
who acted as counsel for Abraham B,niuger III the
Clarke. Ilnlhger SUIT the witness was examined
IN relation 10 tue papers app 9lnting Mcaaurahan
receiver. lie also stated mat In the latter part OF
March he made application to increase tue security
furnished by the receiver ana to have Thomas J.
Barr appointed co-recev0r with MI. Hanranan.
Being crosse examined BY Judge McCuun, witness
stated That the case between the State ana federal
Courts was yery bitter CONFLICT OF Jurisdictions
upon tho
Comfy OF RELATIONS
Hc believed that The action OF Judge McCunn In
the matter i,lly sustained by Judge BlatcnOrd.
Mr. James Morgan was then put On the stand and
underwent an examination "a to q cheek tor $4,000
when appeared 70 nave passed from Judge McCuna
loan maze to min by Judge wcUunn. Judge NC
Gum GOT up, ana IN rather an excited manner
asked we witness whether he was aware OF he ex-
believed 1t was In the ncghDorhood or milliou
and a malt; remember your going to Ireland iH
Coeraine worth $4,000; your property IN Hacken-
sack IS WORTH about s25,0p0. The above testimony
was elected By The Judge for the purpose OF show
Ing wnerc his property was situated, as some ones.
tons had arisen on The subject.
Mr. Abraham Binlnger then testified that Judge
McOuun had granted an order vacatlng the order OF
injunction Issued ~ Judge Biatchord In the United
States Court Restraining the sale Of the property az
puollc auction; the injunction was granted from
the United States Court, but | believe the same
Court afterwards sustained the actiol Of Judge NC.
Gum IN yacatlng the order.
Mr.. Joel O. stevens, Deputy Sheriff, testified that
at the time OF rne conflict between the state and
estate, Judge Mcvunn issued orders to support
the officers of the STATE Court, WAC were III pos.
SESSION first, at all hazards.
Mr. sylvester Nolan Assistant CLERK OF the Supe-
rior Court, was examined IN relation TO some
papers That passed through his hands.
MIR. Thomas darlington, attorney-at-law, before
wnom the Clarke Bnlnger case Is now pendlng as
referee, testified in ialion to some papers.
testified that he one OF the half dozen deputy
snerfs that took part IN the struggle Tor the pos.
tailed OF the hight aud OF the interference OF
the police IN the matter.
Nf. Allen ID. Miner the auctoneer, who was pro-
tnat although Judge McOunn had given him the
permission 10 auction the goods the receiver had
akep II out OF Ills hands and given It over into the
hands OF Mr.. Hertz
Mr. james NJ. Gano testified that he had been APP
pointed receiver in the case OF Elliott Buter that
in consequence OF his having received no fees he
mad not been be 10 pay the counsel fees IN the case.
General Roger a. Pryor es ied shas IN tns sun
and Judge Barbour, Of the superior Court ap.
pointed MI. Gano receivers witness acted as counsel
IN the case, and saw nothing In the matter out OF
the way; he mad only once applied to Judge McCunn
for order outside Of court, and That was III re-
lation TO a habcas corpus case.
MIR. Van Wycke tesuided In relation TO the Ell0tt
and Butler case, bnt his evidence was uninportant,
Mr.. W0odrough, wine merchant, testified tDac
he was present at the sale Of the Bininger liquors.
and In his opinion, they realized very fair prices.
Business was resumed at the evening session Dy
further investigation i'll the charges against judge
Cardozo. The case OF Mcveany against Peter Cul,
kin and the people was again brought up ana
Terence Farley was asked some lew questions IN re-
lation to 81 450 which he drew from MS olnk on
February q. Mr., Farley stated that ne paid 'na
money TO the lab9rers. .,..,o,.
MI. joseph Lar6que was then examined ~ .eiasloH
to some OF the cases connected win Juuge n
Tie first testified In relation 40. the iahsom Van
Injunction case when Mr.. Hanrahan was apponteI
receiver: that he dd suit the counsel Tor MesSrs~
duncan. SHERMAN Co., and that finally Judge Nc
Cum removed Mr. Hanrahan and appointed Mr.
Meeks Deputy Clerk OF tho superior Court, In his
place. Finally The was discontinued, and neither
the receiver counsel got any allowance OF lees.
Witness testified that III the suit OF John OMa,
honey against August Belmont. on application or