New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-08
THE COURTS.
vcc,rTs HUNT FOR A DEFENDANT

A.
,sxrp FOR IN TIIE LIBEL suil'
...~n IN vacate the order by which
n '.,,o,,,ed 70 take the testimony of W r. G'
~ ;n the snit which Judge McCne has prouen'
ou rup TRIBUNE Association. was argned yes'ei-
80 in the speeial Term OF the supreme Oou'" 49,
,nSs, repoep Mr. Runkle opened the case y, ie"''-
,ba ORIGINAL papers, stating that IL was he''9'
as. 10 do so 10 explain why the present 'uo'oa -
made. He read Judge McCues Complaint "nu
rRrpUYEs article, The brookVh MUS 80 s.,oa On
80 m !, and said that Judge Pratt had gran'eu III
- ,,er Amounting Judge Greenwood reiefee
= p so,,on A, Subdivision of the Code, TO take
Mr. shankss affidavit
No s.ld. This is motion for discovery, ana we
process OF the court can19' oe oc,ton FOR Incl, IN
snlVns an award OF exemplary damaees in9rc cao W
20 an issue tins case IN segara 70 'hv S"e WrTnc
sne rug TRIBUNE Association for puo1catlon.
JeSn Doeis Joined, but John Doe Is NOBODY. 'J.a5e
yonnaDySss decision in Opdyke agt The World citeuI
iSs Ncl,ne is seeking to wreak his vengeance upoh
tne aathor the article, and wishes therefore " o
eovor him. Ia
Indgc Tappen-Why is not the remedy by appealf
Mr. Runkle-The other order wac wholly er parH anu
10th witness and defendant ask to have 1t set asiue'
Mr. Bro.dhead-I have a preliminary op9eo"on !"
make 10 all these proceedings, in that MI oAahAs o"~
IN contempt OF Court has standing.
MI Dittenhoefer-Mr shanks cannot DC ne'o ia W"
tempt until he has been declared SO.
directed the parties to the SUIT TO proceed 10 argue No
s.l ,uotion Thereupon Mr.. RuDkle urged that an
order having been obtained under seel1h SUI
vision Z Of the Code, II was an aiIan'"Oo
uSn rnsS6eSd-Tnat statement is incorrect and nm
..isd Ior Judge McCue does not seek uaae 49,, 10y
neyis sake hut TO rescue hls reputation rum tah
MONEY s"S 'n"rsonal representative 10 assume the
responblity OF the article MI shaDAs VIZ t the
the Grand Jury and swore that le he anced m Tho 90
,c, os 9nrears bv the testimony aduuceu III Iuv so
cailed Bntton mvesueatoni there'Oo, 10y hin
lie 0aestlOu he could neither ihiue noi 0Ai ~
H. n,tepboefer-Mr shanks Justly objects that ne Is
-, tbs dilemma: II he does not answer the question: WIG
,'rt vii punish him, and # he answers IL MS employ
r. Mi punish him; therefore, he says avn ~ pv
tion 10 be punished whichever course adopt II tn.s
yeci.s OF tine machinery Of the Court he permitted NJ
g'en viii be indefinitely increased NV associate mas
i.'c1 and ms prlncire affirmed in equity, spirit,
AID reason Section 4, subdivision lm, OF tne COde pro
Idos that II person makes or opposes mouon upon
motion irrelevant and unnecessary. suppose motion
* made examine witness upon mater Hreie'ahV
b The ISSUE would the Court permit II
Mr. Broadhead-We have not asked II.
Mr.. Decentralization person intends 10 make or
oppose motion in court oil record ne 10 n',eu 20, 80
motion bearing upon the action. IDS - lhQt'on
against THE TRIBUNE Association and John Doe t ~
not therefore. motion Oh inc ACTON Dut Ohe "hoH!
M PgSainead-There are no issues as yet
Nj. Dtieuhoefer-Any possible Issues ana YOU are
esOpusd By The allegation that il made 10 hsl for
de'enialt.
ID U.ucnhyeer-Ii tue defendant IS discovered, they
fue nCtce under the name OF JOnu zoe lDt
one side know person; they assume that some
one nas uJ red theL but don't know Who The courts
are no ORGANIZED manufacture suits, but TO try thein
when urOugut by persons against other persons VINO
have injured THIS is case TO enable them 10 ma
"a defendant fud ont defendant whom the other party
should SUE and ia deciding that question, request the
Coat 10 lOOk al the question IN ali its issues.
Nj BfOadacdd-Ne admit that the name John Doe IS
fictitious, but there Is writer OF this article. we are
hsaiug OF defendant and judicial authority exists 20
lm tGat little fishing FOR unknown defendant IL
not improper Mr. ShankS knows the name OF the
article and refuses 10 disclose H. We are
mJgrud. Mr. Reid has been indicted for this o1ense
ant II compel Mr.. Shanks 10 disclose II, we can
compel ann To come INTO Court at once and testify
against The Defendants.
Nj ID ienhOeter-if person strikes me in the dark
DO that event that some person did IL ac-
tly 81 JAe ndud Of individual commit the action
implied but II there il one prlncple better recognized
than another n Is that the Court viii not compel the
discovery of deiendent III "a suit for libel.
IIdyy--Au editor and publisher are one and the
pcg~On Mr. Reid is publisher and editor. If Mr.
H. viii make himself defendant we viii accept hun
bIt We nave offered him affidavit and he has re
iuse0 Do.
~. Misunderstanding have eXamined ,Mr, shanks,
ms refused tVStlIN All dsk " our TiUnVf
et asdc-tnat stayed until this motion is decided.
in. IriCy-Nhat "a proposal that Is!
NJ DttcnhOpfer-I don't want to have Mr.. Shanks
punished while the motion Is pending.
HI Iiacy-I have 10 intention VI moving uhtli Iea
soplhie Une Ia, been allowed
M. DItenEOefeT-I accept that assurance, then