The New York herald., 1872-07-23
Proceedings Of the Court at Sara
tOga Yesterday.
Going Over tho Testimony Anew-Evidence Of
Nehemiah Millard in the Nyce Case-Ad-
journment Of the Court Till Tuesday.
SARAT0GA, July %, 1872.

Mr.. Van COtt then proceeded to open the case,
commencing with brief history of the purposes Of
such courts this and detailing the history OF the
country in this particular. He also defined the
duties OF a Judge, and claimed that the respon-
dent had administered his office with utter dis
regard OF his duties. He referred to the great
premacy OF the law, and that 1t the principle
which rested our system OF government; that our
government was a government OF law, and
not Of men; our judges were required to adhere
strictly to the law and not pervert IT, It their
duty always to decide according to the law. There
were cases in which judges will mistake the law
and thus make wrong decision. In such cases
the Judge is excusabe and he is excused All he
claimed was that the Judge shall decide according
to the law but II he pervert the law, if he departs
from the law recklessly and with criminal intent
then he is subject to be impeached.
We should. however, be charitable in our inves
tigation OF his conduct giving him all the benefits
OF doubt and II he il found to have perverted the
law punish him. II he has merely mistaken the
law he should be excused Counsel then cited o
number Of cases, which he detailed, to show what
MPEACHABLE OFFENCES
were. The first was the case Of ship money judges;
the next was the case OF the judges who advised
the King OF England he could dispense with the
laws, that he could direct the judges how to decide
cases. Also the cases Of Judges Chase, Shppen and
others. Judge Chase was acquitted because he had
de cided according to law ana not contrary to law.
On the other hand Judge Addison was convicted
lor M aecldlng IN violation OF law lie also cted
prisOned defendant for contempt of court, which
contempt consisted Of published libel ,a The Court curt
supposed applied here 1t was cOntended that the
Judges could not punish for contempt not commit
trial was had and the Judges were acquitted
the ground that they had mistaken the law.
THE PRACTICE IN SUCH Ss CASES. 'A'"
He then proceeded to consider the specification In
the charges before the Court, with view to enable
the Court to see on what ground we regard the
respondent guilty OF impeachable offences. He
then referred to the appointment of a receiver IN
sIdered necessary to remove an obstacle the
respondent was ready to lend the assistance of his
prerogative to accomplish 1t. 1t was only neces-
sary to go into the respondents Court with the
name OF James Fisk, Jr., or that OF Jay Gould to
secure O process to estOp any one, Counsel then
proceeded to detail the oice of the Court in such
cases its power and the object OF such proceedings
In the appointment Of q receiver, the receiver
held by the Court. II takes possession OF the pro-
pcry simply to hold it for further proceedings and
80 that it may eventually fall into the hands or the
rigftful owner. Now, when the Court comes TO ex.
anime these various orders it will find that none
ulmation of some right: thew were brought only for
the purpose of seizure to secure possesson in behalf
anohs 1sgn akg te counse men, at
THE ENGLISH sTOCKuoLDERs
and the manner In which they were treated show
ing that the suits were mere slams and that
judicial bench OF the State Of New York and BRING
ing II into reprOach Counsel then passed 10 the
Ait any ana Susauchanna railroad case. merely
referring TO II. and took mn that OF the Union
Pacific Railroad (,ompany I'm which Judue RarnarI
had declared that he had driven one sci of scoun-
drels out OF the CITY of New York and
he would drive another out. and he did
So depriving the METROPOLIS Of one of the
largest corporations in the country Counsel
then gave the history OF the action OF Judge Bar
@ q IN s% R W"s
dered that number OF shares be allowed to be
voted which order the inspector Of the election re-
do so under the law. Then Judge Barnard issued
an order appointing receiver to take possession
OF the books OF the company. The treasurer, sher:
wood, refused to deliver the books, when in stepped
man with an order to arrest him-prepared in
antlcipatl0n OF Snerwoous rcmsal-and he was
taken on to jail. Counsel then referred to
A.. TIE CASE OF GODDARD vs.. STANLEY.
the Pacific Mall case which was case originally OF
demand IOr payment OF an Indebtedness, and
Which culmnated In an order declaring that unless
the money was paid by certain h0ur he would
Counsel asked II ever more lawless order was
issued by q Judge, and concluded by saying 1t was
proceedings were to be permtted-procecding
more appropriate to the Barbary coast than in tile
otase a OF ,,, New 1SrS; @ o,,,,o,, .,,o oo.s.,
to examine their witnesses.
Nehemiah Millard was sworn:-He was the
against the Erie Railway Company, "1he first pro-
ceedng was to procure an Injunction order; pro.
curedlt, In company with my partner; We obtained
1t at Chambers"
Question.-Whc prepared me comp!aintY'
| Mr.. Beach objected TO the reception Of the cvi-
dence as immateral, as It did not in any way i'm
plicate Judge Barnard lie asked that the ordinary
rule o! evidence be followed.
The chair decided the question admissible and H.
was put again.
| plant; 1t was brought TO my Office by Mr. Nyce: |
may have seen him the day before; never had seen
nun before ne came alone, | believe; knew
| Thomas p. Sherman generally; have known Frcte-
rick A. Lane for fifteen years; we were intimate as
| young men; had had opposite cases; had not been
employed by Lane prior to that time; hal not been
| employed by the Erie Railroad Company prior to
| that time; the complaint was not i'm handwriting
| that could recognize; don't know whose hand
| writing IL was in; the Injunction order was copied
| In my 0llcc, ana compared Ii with the original:
| no Injunction order came to me with the COMPLAINT