The New York herald., 1876-03-17
Game Of BattledOOr and ShuttlecOtk in the
Bleerker Street Railroad Litigation.
Right Of the Board Of Health to Enact
Sanitary Ordinances.
ANOTHER APPEAL FOR RUBENSTEIN
Five Years Examination Of a Witness
in Divorce Proceedings.
A FORTUNATE RECEIVER.

motion was TO have been heard In Supreme Court
Chambers, yesterday, before Judge Donohue on the
part Of the Blocker Street Railroad Company, for
leave TO execute lease of the road to the Twenty third
Street Railroad Company. The terms of this lease have
already appeared in the HERALD. Quite an array OF
counsel present in anticipation OF the motion
being made the receiver OF the road being represented
by Robert Ludlow Fowler and the Blocker street
company and Jacob Sharp by Messrs. Devin Miller
Flanagan Bright John NJ. scrbner Jr., and Edward
Patterson. The argument did not take place however
owing injunction having been obtained by Messrs
Chatheld and Ransom, in suit commenced by
them tho part OF some OF the stockholders whereby
the Blocker street company and others were re-
strained, among other things in respect 10 executing
the lease TO which the motion related This !njunc-
tion was granted ex parie by Chief
Justice Davis and copies thereof were served
all the parties defendants during the day. The
present sui. in which the injunction was ars5.ed, Is
brought on behalf Of Jacob Cole. and Mary A. Lester;
and dcisndants in addition TO the Blocker Street
Haroad Company, there arc named John r C3H0yer
Jacob sharp Hugh Smith, Sheridan Shook Thurlow
Weed, William Shardow, John Kerr, William G. Grif
fifth, John NJ. Harowe alleging himself to be trustee,
and Francis NJ Palmer trustee. The complaint, in ad-
Gition TO many allegations which merely formal
and others which have been already published charges
shat plaintiffs the OF 1873 shares Of the capital
stock Of the company of the par value OF 500 each all
OF which they acquired in the regular way and that
they bring this action in good faith, being altogether
unnercsted in stock dealings; that in January last
Conover, Weed, Sharp, Shook and Shardlow
elected directors OF the company for the year ensuing
and elected by Of shares OF stock held
by them and their associates for which actual value
was paid, and the issue OF which created fraudulent
liability and was fraudulent aud void; that said indivi-
duas and their associates at all times heretofore
confederates and pretended to large portion, If
not large majority, OF the capital stock acquired by
them as aforesaid aud the company completely con
roed and subvcrtcd to the OF the individual de-
PENDANTS and their associates and The company refuses
to bring this action they ought TO do and
for such reason the plaintiffs equity
have recourse TO this complaint and nrtou'.
that for years pst the defendants have
managers of the company and directors thereof, and
have controlled 1t by combination OF the sharehold
ers who have acquired their stock In manner similar
10 themselves, including also Hugh Smith, Peter B.
Sweehy William shardlow, John Kerr Elvra W.
Spnola or their assigns, the last named acquiring il
with full OF how was held By the assgnors;
that in 1860 stephen r. Roe, John Stuart, Charles W.
Lawrence, John Kennedy, James T.. Hunt, Charles C.
Clarke, John Fox, William Ravensiync William II.
Peck John Z. Thompson, Thomas Ryan and Joseph c.
Craig authorized 10 build road beginning at the
intersection Of Fourteenth street and running through
various streets, which franchise they assigned the
Bleecker street Company the Htier pretending to pay
therefor the suh OF sJO0 OO IN thc stock OF tie com
pany and S434 900 in bonds secured by morigaee that
such bends ana stock issued for little
sidcration, and was part OF conspiracy to dcfraud
the public and enable sharp and his conitderacs and
associates prof, thereby, and TO rrac corporate
franchises and street railroad grants OF the Legislature
and such acts contrary 10 law, equity and public
policy, aid, imperative and void; that such
purchase was made 10 enable sharp to profit thereby
and not the company; that such sale cou-
tributed 10 the benent of tue company and its
cash assets only about s9i,000; that the so
paid defendants IN excess OF the value of
the construction or the road and its equipments the
extent Of sl,o0o09o, and plaintiffs claim that 10 the
extent ofsuch excess, the same fraud the
part o. the individual Defendants against subsequent
bona SIDE creditors OF such company Tor value
PENDANTS SIN hold such stock and clam that II is
valid Indebtedness against the company and
endcavoring shut out such stockholders pantlns
who have acquired their stock for value and to ox-
clude the creditors and others from participating IN
The Distribution OF tho assets of the company by
OF foreclosure OF mortgage III the interests OF the
bonds ofthc defendants. The injunction Is
foliows-
ION the annexed complaint verified as an AFFIDAVIT
and upon motion OF Chatfeld and Ransom. plaintinTs
attorneys it is ordered that the said defendant
rany, It's officers and agents be restrained from dong
OF the things complained OF the complaint
and particularly from issuing creating any debt or
Indebtedness from doing any OF management or
control thereof tending the control management
thereof and from interfering with mocstng dis
posing OF or alternating 2ny property OF sand defendant
company, from issuing any second mortgage bonds
md also that the said defendant sharp aud other in
dvidual defendants therein be especially eninned ard
restrained from transferring hypohccaling or acua,-
ing either bonds stocks OF Said defendant company
which they may now hold and that the said company,
the other Individual defendants be enjoiued
from taking any step or doing any acts
Of the said defendant company and that the trial OF
the SAID foTcco: action may be stayed until the
plaintiff or receiver m5y ho allowed 10 make answer
setting up such facts they may DC advised, tending
10 show that the sail suit Is brought upon any raudu
lent fictitious bonds other facts which may be
necessary to the protection OF the said plaintiff"
Embraced In the injunction Is order TO show
on the part OF the defendants why II should not be
absolute until the termination Of tho action ana
that the receiver be continued IN ofcc during the sano
time and his functions extended tot this action. The
order TO show rs rcturnablc on the 24th inst