The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-13
TIE COURTS
a Sharp Judicial Admonition
to Litigante.
ERIE RAILWAY FREIGHT BUSINESS
A Singular Suit Against q
Husband.

I1uSDa1O.
Judge Lawrence, or the Court of Common Pleas
In case brought to trial before him yesterday,
took occasion to administer timely judicial eau
tion to litigants letter In reference to the case
had been sent him by the plaintiff in the suit.
Taking this letter as his text, he characterized
such conduct as highly reprehensible on the part
of any litigant, and then added that II any suck
proceeding was again resorted to he would take
care that the proper remedy be applied to the
party offending. He made this public announce
ment from the Bench, he said, in order to notify
parties that they mus. not resort to such proceed
Ing in the future.
hereport OF che Commissioners Of Estimate and
Assessment for the opening OF Eleventh avenue,
shove 155th street, was yesterday submitted for
confirmation to Judge Lawrence, in Supreme
Court, Chambers. Opposition was made to the
confirmation OF the report on benalf OF number
or property owners, the latter claiming that their
assessment for benefit after having been once
fixed had Ueen illegally increased. Judge Law
renee reserved his decision.
Joseph A. b. Cleveland was yesterday held for
examination by Commissioner Shields on charge
OF selling unstamped cigars.
SUIT BY TILE ERIE RAILWAY COM
PANY.
Previous to 1874 the Erie Railway Company
managed its freight business through agents. pay
ing such agents regular salaries, as also persons
employed by them for many years. oliver II. 3.
Archer was one of such agents. In 1866 change
was instituted in the conduct OF such freight
business MIR. Archer took contract to receive
and deliver all the freight arriving at the New
York terminus of the road, he being paid SO much
per ton or by bulk Mr.. Archer paid rents OF the
offices required for his use, as also the salaries Of
with the reception and delivery Of freight. HIS
contract was renewed In 1858 and again In 1871.
The latter contract was anuulled In April, 1873
difficulty ensued in the adjustment Of their ac-
counts. Being unable 10 arrive at al amlcaSle
tue sTay brought SUIT
OWING by him at the time Of the annulling
OF his contract. In his answer Mr.. Archer sets up
which claims the company owes hun. This suit
was some time since referred to ex-Judge Mitchell.
1t Is now claimed on benalf OF the company that
In order TO enable them to properly prosecute this
suit there should be delivered them Mr.. Archer's
books Of account, filing, it is said S37 volumes.
With view to obtain possession Of these books a
motion was made yesterday in supreme Court,
the company, for an injunction restraining Mr.
Archer from dlsposing OF the books or mutlating
Or making any changes In Them, ana fora receiver
appeared in support Of the motion and Dudley
Field In opposition. Vouminous aIidavits were
read on both sides, after wh.ch followed an ex-
tended argument by the respective counsel touch
ing the various law points involved IN the motion.
pany were mainly in support OF the allegation
lISlat Mr.. Archer was an agent OF the company and
In no way different from other agents except in
the manner OF his compensation. The company,
1t was claimed, furnished the blank books IN which
were entered all the freiehts received and de-
livered, and they now claim rhat the same are not
only their own properly, but that the possession
OF the same is essential to the transaction OF their
business, and particularly in the prosecution OF
their present suit against Mr.. Archer. On
benalf OF Mt. Archer IL was claimed
that he acted perfectly independently OF
the company; that the nature or his
contract admitted SUCH independent action; that
the books were ms private property; that at The
termination OF his cont. act he lett VITA them the
books G. nj aiming the amount OF freights received
and delivered; that such books were the only
ones they needed IN order to close their accounts
with him, and that even these were not needed
inasmuch as each carload Of freight was accom-
panied by. duplicate bills OF freight one OF which
was sent to the company and entered in their
books. 1t was alleged, further, that this Is an at
tempt to substitute new action for q discovery
in the other action; that the railway company
should have brought replevin suit or an action
for conversion.
At the close OF the argument Judge Lawrence
took the papers, reServlng his decision.