New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-07-14
THE COURTS.
A CAPITALISTS TROUBLES.

y
STEPHEN H. ALDENs BAIL REDUCED-THE MOTION
TO vACArE THE ORDER OF ARREST DENIED.
Judge Lawrence OF the Supreme Court rem
dered a decision Yesterday IN the Of Abram d.
Uoacland against stephen H. Alden, reducing the bail
OF the defendant $1,000 and denying tne motion 70
discharge an order Of arrest nxing bail at $4,000 uhder
which Mr. Alden has been In the custody of the shern
for the past two months.
Mr.. Alden wealthy capitalist and stock oper
ator who lost nearly all Of his property during the sep
TENDER panic through ventures which he claimed were
made under the advice Of Daniel Drew. Although the
SUIT Is brought in the name OF Hoa@land' Mr.. Alden
AYERS that is only cover that his daughter Mrs
Harriet Ada Trubee is the real plaintiff that there Is
no truth in the pretended gift to her Of he bonds aud
their SUBSEQUENT conversion that, consequently he
had been unusly imprisoned by his own daughter for
the past two months. The text OF the opinion is APP
pended
The afldavits in this directly conflicting and
II apparent that On one side OF the OlHer hthtaht
perjury has been committed Inc action Is Drought nY
the plaintiff lie assignee OF one Mrs lfuDee TO re-
damages tor the alleged conversion Oh certain
bonds OF the Cleveland, Palnesvlle aud Ashtapuld
Railroad aud winch are alleged 10 nave been the prop
ery OF MIS-. IruDee, WHO l. the daughter OF tAe ue
PENDANT aJ the time OF such conversion IN such Eases
the l-9tn section OF the Code permits an order OF arrest
s,ue. ana such an order having been Issued III ms
case the defendant now moves 10 VicAc te SAME 90
not how the motion can be granted Ihe cause OF
action stated in the complaint and the grounds OF
the arrest the same, ana unuef tne
am compelled % hold that cannot decide the disputed
question aud substantially the issues IN favor OF the
defendant on aildvits The assignee IN TINS case Is
lust as much entitled 10 order OF arrest the
.Ignor would have II she had brought the action.
am about 10 the event Of my NOS Yaehng the order OF
arrest TO reduce the amount bail required 10 be gwen
by tie defendant. After much reflection / am con
WINGED that II Is my duty 70 make such reduc-
ton While am not at liberty, under the author
ties above referred 20, pass upon the disputed
facts, think that l at liberty 10 take lnto
consideration all the circumstances az disclosed
nv tue afidayits in determining tue question as
10 the proper bail TO be required or the defendant
There are certainly many facts which seem 10 indicate
thar TINS action may have been brought Tor the grail
con OF malice rather than for the recovery OF dam
ages actually sustained
N 40 the bail should be made 40 high az TO render
IL impossible Tor defendant obtain it anu on the
other manu. should not be reduced 20 go low an amount a.
10 render probable that the defendant will not abide
the final OF the Governed by these con
alterations nave determined 10 reduce the amount or
the bail TO $4,000 Let order Do entered 20 that
effect. The motion 10 yacate tile order Is denied
VIM Henry Anthem and WIN. Fullerton appeared In
favor OF the notion aud Brown, Hall, ami Naaderpoe
were opposed,