, 1874-01-10
THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY.

o.hcr prominent latlea hnd gentlemen.
THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY.
Arguments in tho Motion for n Now
Vrtnl in tho Suit 4AgntnHt John II.
Sherman OF A1s
Tho motion for new trial in tho cass Of the Penn.
ssivaia 1salroad Company agninat john D. Sherman.
H. NJ. Allerton, and s. ". Al1crton waa partially
arg,cd yesterday in tho United Bates Circuit court,
The counsel IN tho caRo were Mesyrs. Leonard Ewett
and E. a. storrs for tho planttf, and Aessrs. u, r.
Smith and u. F. Aver for tho defendants. Tle hrar-
Ing bcfore jssdgo Dodgest resulted IN dccsiou for
tho dotondanta, and by invitation, Judge Drumnond
prealdel III conjunction with Judge nlolgctt.
AnouMEaT fon THE COMPANY
h1r. s~att opened the argument by rcctng tho nnin
points VI tho controversy, which have already been
quito extensively mentioned in THE TRIBUNE. lie
claimed TINT partnership waB formed bcwecn Joseph
h1cPllesaon tho two Asertons, and Sherman, by which
aas ownG2 sna ns Ss
oco The fact Of tho parnorship was duly represented
t9 t9 railroad sopay bu ios ro;sons Of potey
I!Sssy Sssis, .onss tasy j., bound t1s;s:
WI execusei il tho manner sgreea upon, being
ceaaon n $l0 Quo ah to rent naa by tho rairoad
c9fG to % eie psnnsylvanl" r nailroaa tho shipment
t. ss '';ssS 6 'as g.:
hany Yards, aaA TIM buffalo aud suaponston
Bridge Yards all identinol with tho interests Of the
ese Ssw X1f or nsrss 3ss ed a x s ssrsa ss
with tho Eric 1sailroadbotl non thus working d.
rccsy against tue tncrcats Of Tho Pennsylvania ati-
. dccreo confirming tie partnership rights Of A. NJ.
Allortom aid Sherman, aud thus tho q,e stlon was
Now il was ciaimct by tho p1utuir III tho rrcsout
action that 1t waH tnelulIabe an fareira for party
70 oatablsh certain state Of facts uul roatons anl
lions in anoor court Counsel "u unasrsooa @ @ Tia, that
Jndgn plodgett decided that tho allegation of partnor
shir In tho leaao was not proved. This excepted
and a1so tnat tho question as to whether they wcrs
proved was for ths jury, and not for the Court to
% y Iae 70. point az TO whetnsr @ ~ s weSe
y. Alorton WIZ nrRued ut length, Mr.. SWEET holding
thas ~. Allerson md shernlall were partners, A.
J1aKe Drammond inquirsl II tile defendanta de-
hr swot said they lid deny it in, OBJECT though not
Judge Drummoni remarked thu. tho point, then,
was AZ to tho kns! Of avdeea admissible to show the
Mr.. Bweit replied that al1 the anthortios were unan-
imoa ~ holding that parol approval prosous or pa
rol ratification subsequent to tho signing Of thc rl
nnsno by any one OF tho partners, waB sulciont 10
bind the firm tu any agreement entered into II
made no tlnerenro whether tho inarument was under
fac aud must 10 decided by tue Jury Whose province
must not 10 absorbed by tho Court. All that
essary to show n this caac was that thu lease sigu
ed by Home otlo partner ln tue firm Of which 8. W Al
lorton Joseph Mclhelsou. 4. n. Aifcrtu all,l John
y. sher1nan were members. This was question Of
fact, which ought to 20 to the Jury.
ARGUMENT ron DErEHpANTs.
Mr. U. ?. Smith (of Walker. Dexter l. Smth). for
the negan bis by as,ng TINT
to review tho main fcA, concerning which there
dlsusree.nent. II wis truo' thnt tho Pennsylvnnia
facilities for tic shipment Of stock, tie luck Of Which
had preyone. 1t from getting fa'r lroportion of this
elnss Of ls"oss snd w4s Rue%n th both II
that time nsanly identtled with tic
Now York Central route, and those relations
1oad 70 that 1t could not bo clnined tlue Sherman
anl Abortion wont over to the onc1ny. A. H. Aler-
ton sn'lly coninned his relations to tho Centra oad
now favorable than al that time to Tic Tenusyis
yn,a Roa ro'u tic fact that the Union Stock Yards
alike. Before tho lsase In question was issued, tic
artics conducting the East Liberty yarda ad failed.
rsseea WIN we're Responsible Us well " thoss
w1o could influence shipments ovcr tint road.
~, The Alertons alcpherson, and stosi.an mot In
sylvan!a load. They went thonco to Philadelphia,
having aa yet made deiiuite arrangements. There
w,ic other % arrangemonis m had 10 s 10 nude Seiore
final agreement could he reached. 1u Philadelphia the
n.nter was talked over md there WIS some lesancy
III going Into tho matter on the part Of A. H. Alerun
nnd sllernan. y. W. Alerton had sworn TINT 4. II.
Allerton refused to 60 into It, mud TINT, when they
went to tho Solicitors Office to what kid Of oase
rhould 10 drawn, 1t was uncertain wheher copart-
nershir would be formed. Iu tic New York Nsiga-
tion, Ham Allerton testified that he refused to
agseo to partnership name, for the reason
partnership entered into until aonae days after
the lease wus executed aud 4o had denied that H. H.
Allcrfon evcr came Into the partnership All this
sworn to by Sam Allcrtou III this caae, and he alAo
sworo that he signed hls to the l0ano for himself
aono aud that the admission Of 4. III. Allerton and
Sherman partners WAS to bc settled ufterward. This
latter claimed that they partners to the
lease, but they did subsequently becoo partners III
tlle profits Ut the EaSt Liberty yards Mr. Smith re-
cited the hiHory Of the controversy claiming that II
was evident that tho only object In bringing tB suit
VIA to avoid being compelled 10 trn bhare Of
tho l,roia aince Feb :, 1870.
THE SOLE QUESTION.
Judge DrnmInonl said 1t AeBNed Ia him TINT parties
had been aued who wcre not PARTIES to The contract
upon which aHit waa brought aud the only question
ing TINT tho defendants parties to the execution
OF the Lease.
Mr. Smith held that the Court had ruled correctly in
refusing to adult oral testimony affecting scaled
instrument.
Tho Court then adjourned until 10 o'clock this MORN
Ing, when Mr.. Smith will resume biz argument.
W&RhCH AUEMIlE