The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-28
McCunn's Case Completed With
out Defending Counsel.
SPICY RECEIvERsHIP DEVELOPMENTS
A Decision Promised ON
Tuesday Next.
PRlNDLE AND CURTIS.
Their Trials To Be Immediately
Proceeded With.
State Senate.


ALBANY, N. Y, June 81. 1872.
At the meeting OF the Senate this morning but
seventeen Senators responded at roll CALL No coun
sci for Judge McCunn appeared.
Senator Lewis suggested the summonine OF wit
nesses in the case OF Judge Prindle by telegraph,
as it was probable the McCunn case would be closed
during the day. and 1t was the evident desire OF the
Senate to proceed at once with the charges against
Judge Prindle.
|. Mr. Mygatt of counsel for Judge Prlndle, said
that the accused had not expected his to come
on until after the Fourth of July and the defence
were therefore not ready.
Senator Bowen remarked that 1t was the under
standing that Judge Prindlc's case should be called
at the close Of Judge McCunn's case.
Senator Madden hoped that the testimony In the
case Of Judge Prindle would be taken by commit
tee.
Mr.. Mygatt thought the Senate could dispose Of
the case much faster than special committee.
Senator Lewis motion was agreed to-
PROCEEDING WITH MOUNTS CASE.
The case Of Judge McCunn was then resumed.
James M. Gano failing to respond to his name, the
Sergeant-at-Arm was directed to bring him before
the Senate.
Charles w. Banks, counsel for Mr.. Beecher as
sgnee In the case was then sworn, and related the
action OF Judge McCunn in directing the arrest OF
the assignee, Mr.. Beecher; witness had not heard
Judge McCunn threaten to drive Mr.. Binninger
out Of the county
Edward Van Ness plaintiff against Henry Leeds
and others, was next called and sworn, and de-
tailed the features Of the case his evidence ap-
parently showing that Judge McCunn's order had
put the parties to the suit to great unnecessary
pense and enabled the receiver and referee and
counsel to secure large profits.
THE JEROME BUCK RECEIvERsHIP.
Joseph Larocque, counsel for defendants In the
case of Edward w. Brandon We. Jerome Buck and
others, was then sworn. This witness was called
upon for testimony In support Of the fourth printed
alleged the respondent made an order appointing
Daniel H. Hanrahan receiver OF fund OF 81, 900 In
was not asked for by any Of the parties to the suit
| that Judge McCunn knew Hanrahan to be a totally
unfit person for the position, and that his action
was dictated by desire to secure gain. This Wit
ness examined at great length relative to court
| orders which were shown him.
James +. Morgan (brother1n-law OF Judge
| McCunn) was next sworn. He testified he had re-
| ceived an order from Hanrahan for $4,000; had
presented IT at the counter Of the banker on whom
he had not In any way requested the appointment
OF receiver.
James M. Gano appeared and was sworn He
had been appointed receiver by Judge McCunn in
the case Of Albert B. Corey against walter b Long
| he was reappOinted by Judge Barbour. The charge
that the Judge Gan9 and nd
and entering an ec pdTte summary order, falsely
purporting to be an order OF the Superior Court,
by which GanO was appointed receiver OF all the
partnership property, valued at many thousand
dollars, and the plaintiffs defendants and their
credits were thus deprived OF the property without
due process of law Gano testified that he mad once
before been appointed receiver In o case by Judge
McCunn; the assets in that case were 5000; that
the affairs Of the firm occupied two months In set
| Ting up; that he had employed lawyer to help
take an inventory OF stock, and that nearly one
| half ndS nj In In IN fhAn
| penses of the receivership
In reply to questions from Senator d. P. Wood
Superior Court and that the reappointment spoken
order leroy o{ vaeach val granted WIN "'' 'A'
| Counsel of people offered In evidence the order
| OF Judge Barbour setting aside the appointment of
Gano. Said order did not state the reasons for va
Mr. Gano replied he did not know the reasons
for issuing the order, except that he was brother
in-law OF Judge McCunn.
| Mr. Harrison, OF counsel for people, In reply to
questions from Senator's, said the papers showed
the order OF Judge McCunn was set aside for cir
regularity" but they did not state the nature Of
THE ELLIoTT-BuTLER REcErvERsHIP
William Van Wyck was called and sworn, giving
p. Butler; be was counsel for the plaintiff and
made an order before Judge McCunn for appoint
ment Of receiver James M Gano was "a, appointed;
pointment; this charge alleges conspiracy on the
part Of the parties-Gano. Judge McCunn and
illegally.
Counsel Of people put in evidence original order
OF Injunction granted In this case.
Louis II. q. Ehrhardt was sworn-Mrs. Butler,
defendant In the case spoken OF above, is mother
in-law Of witnessi in 1859 witness boarded with
her at No. 81 West Twcntyf0urth street; Gano came
there and said he had been appointed receiver OF
Mrs. Buffers effects, and would not allow any OF
the boarders to remove their effects unless they
paid him (Gano their board nils; Gano called in
policeman, who, however, did not remain long;
witness got an order from Judge McCunn allowing
/ kp oUQu Ia TRIM kg 20 Yfa1t md
said all right, but In the evening Judge McCunn APP
peared and said unless the bOarder paid him or
Gano even If he had paid others) the trunks could
| not be removed.
| .sF~'~ JAMES N. aANo RECALLED
Said he was receiver In the case OF Elliott vs..
Butler, and also collected some money from board.
ers In Mrs. Buffers house; paid part OF money thus
received to servants In the house, and part to the
deputy receiver Sheriff 0B ,ns attachsG the
was plaintiff in the casej think the Sheriff finally
received the money for HIS fees; had not filed any
H5ssR SRI R B cs Inc %0nfy e
rented the house from Judge McCuhn, and still
the name Of Judge McCunn to notes and ali papers
for the transaction Of business his agent; Judge
McCunn did not 90 to the house when witness first
took possession OF It, but was sent for week after
"FoR GODS SAKE CLOSE THIS BUSINESS
up at 0nce did not read all the papers In the case
and did not know it was my house; It viii get me
In trouble;" did not take q receipt for the money
| paid the Sncr1n, ana never accounted 10 any per-
son for the money received think the sum was over
one hundred dollars; paid the deputy receiver
about e-third OF the whole sum collected.
Counsel for people called attention to the fact
that In neither case was Gano called upon to give
bonds.
Mr.. Larocque, recalled, testified he was attorney
for the defendants In the case OF John O'Mahoney
Vs. August Belmont and Ernst LucSe. The charge
| in this case alleges that Judge McCunn illegally
made and entered an order, in July, 1869, appoint
ing Thomas j. Barr receiver OF $4,000 in gold, and
ordered the defendants to pay over to the receiver
an amount In current funds equivalent to said sum
| In gold that Lucke was
| THREATENED WITH IMPRISONMENT
and paid the money, and that said proceedings
| were the result Of q conspiracy. Witness said
there was no fund In the suit for which receiver
could be appointed as the funds were bills OF ex-
| change which had been sold by Mr. Belmont q
banker on his correspondents In England; said
bills were drawn In 1885 and delivered TO John
O'Leary;
IT WAS A FENIAN FUND;
Belmont had never received any notice OF the pre-
sentation or demand for payment OF these bills
there was no claim for q receivershfp Of any fund
except money that had been obtained for
bills OF exchange which had been sold; counsel