The Portland daily press., 1874-12-11
NEW YORK.
The Croker Case.

New YORK, Dec. 10-There are over thirty
witnesses for the defence in the trial of Croker
who will swear that they were looking at the
fight. and neither O'Brien nor Croker had a
pistol A good deal of testimony was given to
day tending to show that the fatal shot was
fired from the crowd some distance from
O'Brien and Croker.
Ring Relic.
A relic of the ring cases appeared in the SUI
preme Court chambers to-day. A motion was
made in the suit of the supervisors against Geo.
S. Miller to recover 81, 131, 804.70 alleged over
charge for carpenter work on the new court
house. 1t was moved by Mr.. Peclkham to sub
s.itute the names of the Mayor. &c, as plain
tiff under the consolidation act. MIR. Root IN
reply, contended that conferred no such power
on the court, and Judge Donahue took the pa
pers
A Singular Suit.
A suit has been entered in the Supreme
Court in the name os the people of the state of
New York by Attorney General Pratt, against
Hugh j. Jewett and the Erie Railway Co.. 1t
is alleged that while Jewett was elected in July
last President for one year, he as director
made contract with it as represented by the
bord of directors whereby he in form became
bound to serve that company as President for
ten years and the company became bound to
accept his services for that time and pay him
$4,000 per annum therefor, or in all 900,
of which $4,000 was stipulated to be paid in
investments the first year, viz, $50, 900 in cash
during the month of September So, 1000 in
equal monthly installments during the first of
said ten years, through its pay roll, and the
balance in five promissory notes or acceptances
of the company of $25,000, each bearing even
date to mature, respectively, at two, i've, SIX
and ten months from the 14th of September,
1874. The Attorney General alleges that this
contract is illegal calluseri, fraudulent and
void, and that the salary is grossly unreasona-
BILE and exorbtant, notwithstanding which
the company has actually paid Jewett the
$4,000 cash provided to be paid and made and
delivered said five prOmisory notes and has
actually paid one of said notes.
The Attorney General also alleges that jew
EFT has in this unlawfullyy alienated the proper
ty of the company and suffered Tito be wasted
and is guilty of gross misconduct in the office
of director and President and will continue to
abuse his trust unless restrained by the court
and suspended from office.
The Attorney General also alleged that the
said Erie Co. and the New York Central and
Hudson River Co., another company organized
under the laws of the state, in or about July,
1874, entered into combination and agree
ruent whereby among other things, it was
agreed that the rates for transportation OF live
stock over and upon said roads should be made
uniform, and each of said companies should,
after certain time, increase said rates and the
earnings of each of said companies should be
divided and shared between them, the said
combination and agreement being afterwards
made known to Jewett
ment is wholly illegal and against the public
policy.
The document sets forth other illegal pro-
ceedings, and the Attorney General asks that
receivers be appointed to hold the said notes
for the stockholders.
The TiIton- BeecIier Case.
A consultation of judges in the Tlton-
Beecher case was held this evening in regard to
the propriety ard probability of being able to
continue the case Monday next. No definite
result was reached, but it was agreed THAT tie
counsel should consult as to the length of time
the case would last with view to the decision
whether it could be tried during the present
term. A definite decision will probably be
made in day or two.
The Proctor-MouIfOn Case.
The Travellers special says that the COM
promise of the the Proctor-Moulton libel suit
has resulted in number of widespread ru-
mors to the effect that all other suits, growing
out of the scandal will likewise be settled.
There appears to be no grounds for such state
ments. The effect of the compromise will not,
it is generally thought, be prejudicial to the
prosecution of the civil suit against Mr..
Beecher. 1t is regarded as shrewd movement
by Moulton's counsel to get HIM out of a bad
fix. The opinion of Tilton's counsel of the
compromise is tibet it proved nothing and went
TO show that Mr.. Moulton had published a
statement for which he was liable to penalty
according to law.