New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-11-30
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
THE rRTE-GouLD STRUGGLE.

rRENCE--CONTROvERsY WITH THE ALLAN
TIC AND GREAT WESTERN COMPANY.
The order of reference granted several days
ago to examine WIN. Il. Travers in relation to the
"corner in Chicago and Northwestern tho subject
OF an animated debate yesterday in the Supreme Court
before Judge Fancher. Mcssrs. LlrOcquo and MoFar
land appeared early in the morning and made motion
20 vacate the order OF reference tho original adayit
on which order of against Gould was granted
Mr. Iarooque, for Mr. Trayers claimed that the order
had been improvdenty granted aud should be vacated
that under the code examination could not be ordered
until the witness had refused to make affidavit; That
so far romircfu1ing MrTravers perfectly willing
10 tell ell he knew IL his conditions could be agreed 10
but he denied the rightof Gould, his counsel TO nsh
out his private affairs.
Counsel citod'at length opinion OF Judge Cirdozo
in the case of Fisk ag The Chicago and Rock Island
Railroad in support Of this view. This case, he argued
is fair illustration ltho dangers of any other course
OF proceeding Mr.. Could in suit TO recover certain
MONEYS he Is alleged to have improperly obtained from
the Erie Railway Company. puts In two answers one
defense OF pretended release the other not defense
but diversion, that some OF the parties engaged IN IN
terest with the plaintiffs sofcers are Interested In
breaking corner In Northwestern Lstock. SO IL Is
claimed that Mr. Travers cot before referee and In
the absence OF any counsel for himself for the plain
tiff might be examined las TO the merits OF the ac-
tion but TO his private connection with TINS Nast'
matter Mr. LarOcque insisted that this was not the
purpose Of the statute and referred to the statute III
question TO prove his point
In reply Mr. Beach, for Gould, said in part: 1t is not
proper here discuss the questions which the yaea-
ton of tho order Of depends except far as is
pertinent to this motion. They should claim that the
OF arrest obtained by the suppression OF mate
this was not for the purpose OF the suit but 10 aid
Wall St. operation They asked that Mr.. GOuld De
placed under tho impossible bail OF nearly sQOOOJ ana
there has been earnest PERSISTENT, and prolonged
effort to obtain the fixing OF bail in that amount Does
matters especially when there is suppression OF such
material fact this release. But there has been no
such terrible matter about this examination. The code
is not the only authority for these examinations ana the
revised statutes have provided that conn5, may De
present Nor have they ever asked that Mr. IraNers
should be without counsel when examined. Iney nave
suggested oral examination where the wtnes = cou
object questions, ana Mr. 1raYer5 declining
TO answer them, the question OF MS duty 10 90 so may
Traverss counsel is OF such datory character tha II
is a substantial denial OF tho whole matter; ,.
Mr.. Field Oh the same Side repeued the insinuatOh
that they had sought to pry into Mr. raverss private
affairs. They had distinctly dsavOwed before MIN ana
his counsel any such purposes Judge Cardozos opinion.
relied on by the opposite side, had been faithfully dis
n regarded by the Judges OF this district Under IL a
they would have TO do would be 10 present preposterou
affidavit to the proposed witness, aud get his refusal
Tne question was one OF the fairness or uhalinesS Oh
readiness aud fankness which seemed TO him TO require
the defendant to waive any right ,,
Mr.. Mcfarland said lac regarded the release on which
Gould relied defense more than SO much waste
paper; that Gould got from the Company while Pres
B dent, and from Directors OF ms own hppolhling ~
was Intended" said the counsel TO shield man VINO
n Is notorious 6cOundrel rom HaDlHty Tor nearly
SlOOoOO0O which claim he distracted wrOnguily.
have insisted and urged the enforcement OF the order
arrest that Mr. Gould should be held 10 bail In the
II amount claim, because believe II emlnenty proper
Il that he should be 80 held"
Mr.. Beach and objected TO the term no.
tOrOus scOuudrel" being Rpped O bis client 1t would
be time enough TO prove IL when the rial came on Pro-
pety least demanded that such charges should be
withheld
Mr. Mcfarland inserted the remark hero that the rep
utations Of some men were public property, and lac
didn't suppose II necessary for him 10 say more
II The decision reserved.
Beyond the proceeding In Court there appeared TO be
no further developments in Eue yesterday. $. j.. NJ
Barlow makes the following PLANTATION IN relation 10
meeting OF the joint COmntee OF Erie aud Atlantic
and Great Western directors at his office on Tuesday:
In 1863 the Atlantic and Great Western Railway was
the Erie Railway Company ana In 1871 the Atlantic ana
Great Western Railway fOreClOsed ana IA new com
pany formed under the name, NJ which time
the lease the Ere terminated When settlement
came to no made the Atlantic aud Great Western climed
a very large balance aud Erie paid II, about s9O,OOO
partly supp the line OF the Atlantic aud Great
Western Raj way, ana partly IN money but the Receiver
of the Atlantic and Great Western claimed that hundreds
thousands VI dollars still due for which there j.
suit pending in ONO Tae E.lo Railway IA repre-
by George TcknOr Gurus. A meeting hed at aiT.
BarlOws Office for the purpose OF compromising the m
gatiOu this effort falling tue whole subject was
10 Peter ii, Watson eNGOG. H. ID. Morgan, ana
John Taylor Johnston, in behalf OF the Erie, ana Gen.
George Is. Mcclellan, Abraham 3. ii ,witt, and Lloyd
A,pnWa Ia behalf OF the Atlantic aud Great Western,
for further consideration. Mr. Barlow says however,
that there Is not likely ~ be any foreclosure.