The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-03
Judge Grover States the Case and Sits
the Wheat from the Chat.
Lawyers and Experts ON the
Stand.
The Facts Of Barnards Connection with the
Albany and Susquehanna Railroad.
TACTICS OF THE DEFENCE.
The Right and Wrong of aJudge's Action
in Granting an Elk Parte Order.

SARATOGA, August 2, 1872.
The Court met at ten o'clock A. NJ, thirty three
members present.
Jonathan r. Herrick affirmed that he was a
director OF the Albany and Susquehanna Railroad
Company, and Vice President in 1858; remember
the litigation connected with that company; there
were fourteen directors; am acquainted somewhat
with the circumstances under which Fisk and
Gould became connected with that company.
Counsel asked witness to state these circum
stances.
Mr.. stickncy, of counsel for the prosecution, OBJ
case before the Court.
Mr.. Beach read the nineteenth charge to show
that charges were made that Barnard was
IN CONSPIRACY WITH FISK
and Gould and others through orders concerning
this road. Evidence had been given in support Of
this charge. Other evidence had been given to
show the social relations existing between Judge
Barnard and these parties. We propose to show
you the origin of the difficulty between Ramsey,
President of the road, and these parties, in order
to show that there was no conspiracy.
Counsel then briefly stated the circumstances, to
the effect that there was an effort made, the object
of which was to introduce more economical man.
agement of the road. This effort was made in the
usual Oh securing stOckS get secure
control of the road. He also claimed his ability to
show that as an obstacle to this effort Mr. Ramsey
had made issue OF some $500 shares of stock and
thus controlled the election. He thought this evil
dence was responsive to the charge, and re-
PEELED the idea that there was any ilegitimate
action on the part of Fisk and Could Unless this
evidence was admitted, said the counsel, why this
defendant stands perfectly defenceless against the
charge. 1t was only by the means proposed that
the defendant could show his
INNOCENCE OF THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY
or OF any illegal action. Counsel argued the point
at some length claiming that 1t direct and re-
sp onsve evidence.
Mr. Stickney replied that the prosecution had
simply proved the issue of the orders and writs and
the intimacy existing between Fisk and Gould with
Barnard, but to the Ramsey action, that had not
been gone into and it not proper to go into it
now.
mission Of the evidence to the Court.
Chief Justice Church said he would base his
Affirmative vote upon the fact that the Court had
already decided that there had not been sufficient
evidence to establish the fact that there was con-
spiracy betw cen Judge Barnard and Fisk, Gould
Mr.. Murphy said there being evidence adduced
tending to show that there was a conspiracy, he
would vote In the affirmative.
The Court decided by a vote OF 16 to IL to admit
the testimony by everything the objection.
Witness then proceeded to say that the origin Of
the difficulty was by distrusting the ability of
PRESIDENT RAMSEY AND HIS MANAGEMENT;
shared in that dstrust; originally seven and then
eight directors opposed his management; efforts
direction; at length efforts were made to
%ay our se tor fo
Ramsey, called upon Fisk and Gould and asked
their assistance, as l was informed then, and 1t
was obtained they agreed to loan $500, 900 to these
four directors for the purpose of purchasing indi-
vidual and town stock; about One-half was held by
company had been issued: little less than eleven
thousand shares had fallen into the hands of the
Church party, which was majority; only knew of
$500 shares OF additional stock being Issued through
testimony In the suits following.
WILLIAM L. NJ. PHILIP
at this juncture called on the stand and sworn
He was Secretary and Treasurer of the Company
and testified that he was subp9naed to bring the
stock ledger and directors books for 1869, together
with other papers; but was unable to secure the
books for the reason that he Ill yesterday and
had to leave this morning before the office was
open; he had intended to bring the books, but was
Counsel produced printed copy of the subscrip-
tons to the $500 shares and Philip recognized
not present when they were made.
THE EXAMINATION OF PERRIET
was then continued He said the subscriptions to
the $500 shares were made on the 9th OF August;
do not know where they were made; ten per cent
money o%
on the road; a portion of these shares
was taken there We're two Boards of nspecton
and 1t was taken nearly at the same time; some
by voters getting into the room; there were in
junction orders issued at the time. Witness then
detailed
THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE ELECTION:
prior to the election there was finance committee
appointed at the annual election In 1868; this was
on account of the doubts as TO the financial man.
Judge Grover here raised the objection that this
inquiry was going into the question whether the
Ramsey or the Church party were right In the sus-
quehanna litigation, and which the Court had moth
ing whatever to do with; the question here was
fbarI uIn ad aofa
that all the question the Court had to consider:
Judge Barnard's action was to be judged OF on the
Ramsey or Church, was right. He appealed to the
Court to not set the precedent that
Is to be tried the merits or dement's of the mar
ties claims applying TO him for orders. He said
there were orders issued In this case on appica-
tons which, II he were the Judge, he would have
hesitated over but he protested against holding
this Judge responsible in his action on the question
whether the Ramsey interest or the other side
Senator Murphy was reluctant TO differ with the
Judge Just addressing the Court; that Judge mad
these orders, for be knew nothing about them; but
the Court had voted to receive a certain kind of
he question was whether udse BsqnsTd
had Issued these orders properly or improp-
erly. He had voted to admit this testi-
show that there was no corrupt conspiracy be-
tween MIN and Fisk and Gould. He thought that
Judge Barnard was to determine these Applications
upon the papers before him; II he thought the
piantifr entitled to the order It was his duty to
grant the order.
The Chair stated that from the action OF the Court
he thought 1t was entirely proper that the re-
spondent should have opportunity to put In this
evidence.
Mr. Beach then addressed the Court at some
length, asking II the respondent, arter testimony
had been taken as TO the issue OF these orders, |
should not have the right to show, If he can, that
be acted from honest motives; that II he erred it |
was from mistake OF the law and the fact. He |
asked but justice from this Court, nothing more. |
He was delighted with the expressions roa1c here
BY the learned Judge OF the Appeals, Grover, and |
The Senators, that the respondents action was TO
DO judged by the papers before him, and tkat he |
was not to be judged by the corruption Of those
who came before him. Therefore he asked
FREE LICENSE FOR THE RESPONDENT
% show the honesty Of his motives
Mr.. Stickney replied, and the Chair put the ques-
Ion to the Court whether objection to the evidence
hould be sustained, and II was decided In the