New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-12-08
THE COURTS.
THE WESTCHESrER SCANDAL.
-. ,.oprr>,,vv rtppr sIrI-r FNDrD

The libel sui; brought by Mrs. Lucy A.
Mcmahon against Francis T. Edrdgo and the Rev. Rob
ert Holden in the Circuit Court at White Plains ended.
ON Saturday. with the withdrawal OF the plaintiff 1t
had been agreed Friday night that the opening
q, the Coirt two Of the counsel or either side should
address, the jury alternately. Accordingly, as
the Court was opened, XDistrict-Auorney ]. o. Dyk
man BEGAN to sum up for the defense. While
he was speaking 1t became known TO his associate that
the plaintiffs husband much grcvcd bv the horrible
revelations made in his wics letters to Eldridge aud
that he dcsiredo have the suit withdrawn Before Mr.
DyEman had ceased speaking the remaining counsel on
both sides retired 10 aneroom, and after confer
cnce OF several minutes returned the courtroom. The
counsel for the defendant then informed the Court that
the painful controversy had happily been brought to
close and highly satisfactory to every one
concerned. The following terms OF settlement, signed
by all the counsel on both sides. were then read:
As to Mr.. Holden the counsel for Mrs Mcmahon are
satisfied that Mr.. Holden has been guilty OF no inten-
uOna wrong or misconduct ana withdraw all charges
made against his brethren ecclesiastical snpe-
Iiors, and in this Mrs McMahon unreseryedy eoncurs
The counsel for the Rev Robert Holden are sashed tna'
duct wife and mother are uDimpeached Nv the de-
yeopments OF tins trial. counsel being sa.lssai IRON
written 90 Mr.. Eldridge (some OF which were Introduced
Holden his wife, and other parties. since aud about
Jan 1871 were written by her while IN state OF mind
which rendered her irresponsible All suits between
the parties are TO be discontinued, without costs.
The Judge concurred. and In dismissng the jury ex
pressed regret that the had not arrived at such
desirable conclusion earlier and also congratulated all
the persons concerned the happy end of the suit AS
condition of the settlement 1t agreed that the
entire correspondence of the plaintiff with Eldrdge
should DC al once DESTROYED, and this agreement was
house ward. Mrs Mcmahon did not appear IN Court,
The interest by the woman's being concerned
in recalls the debut OF Mrs Mcmahon on the
she appeared IN Budilo in the Winter OF 1851,
made utter failure. although supported by Law
renee Barrett and tolera0iy good STOCK company.
Her farewell address TO her andeRee was n,Oe i
with aud finally came TO tins city where se
having removed 10 the new Metropolitan Theater, later
known the Winter Garden Mrs Mcmahon and her
company PLAYED here for about two weeks To compare
lively empty benches, and she then withdrew from NE
stage altogether.
DOUBLE OFFICE-HOIDING SOMETIMES LEGAL.
Controller Green's refusal long time ago
90 pay James Ryan, Deputy Clerk of the Court of Spe
cia Sessions, his salary for the four months, during
which he also member of the State Legislature
created very interesting discussion regarding the e-
galty of persons holding two official positions stimuli
taneously and receiving two salaries Judge Daniels
OF tho Supreme Court conceded with the Controllers
RYAN entitled to his salary as Deputy
Clerk, snceshe vacated that office when he elected
TO the Legislature. Judge Daniels however. granted
alternative writ of mandamus, 80 that the
point raised might be argued. AfCer a subse-
quent renewal OF the application before Judge
Joseph f. DAILY the Court decided Ryan's right TO the
payment ~ his salary Judge Days opinion. rendered
Saturday, after preliminary statement OF the fici
the case, points two grounds of ncOmpatihy OF
olicefirs where from the mere multiplicity OF Office
both offices cannot be discharged by one mau; ami
secondly where they subordinate aud interfere VITA
each other Il presumption arises that the two cannot he
discharged mpartalty and honestly by man. This
last class OF incompatihy, he says, is The only one
largely discussed IN the reported cases. Judge DAILY
cites great length bearing On thls
point, and among DINERS cases where the ae-
ceptanee of second office without regard to it's
weight held 10 vdcate the first But lie also
sites 10 show that the holding two Offices when
incompatible for Of these at com
law ncd proper. and as the Constitution does not
forbid that, the doctrine l. the same here Tue cases
show thai doctrine of neOmpatiOtyi fully recog
nzed, bat the holding of offices no! incompatible
equally recognized He holds that the Deputy ClerA OF
Special Sessions is not subordinate out coordinate
officer under the statute VIII that OF Clerk the Two
officers being appointed by tue power and under
regulations, and being simply olternales TO
each other The Deputy Clerk has. mis- appointment.
years OF Office the Assenbyman, 10y expectation OF
law, 100 days ana in fact more tnan nve months
Thus the day duty does make the Offices aDsO-
jutey incompatible, there being alternate for the
duties here Ryan, lie holds did vaeate Inc Uiee VI
Deputy CLERK