The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-05-18
From tie chicago Tunes, nh.
An Important Decision by Judge
Drummond in the Rockford and
Rock Island Railroad Suit

An Important Decision by Judge
Drummond in the Rockford and
Rock Island Railroad Suit.
The litigation in connection with the
Rockford Rock Island and St. Louis Rail-
road company still goes bravely on, and
when and where the matter will stop It's
hard to predict, although the proceedings
before Judge Drummond in the United
States circuit court on yesterday would in
dictate that the litigation is speedily draw
ing to a close, and, that, too, in a favora-
bic manner to Mr. Heyman Osterberg, the
representative Of the German bondholders
who purchased the road at the master S
sale last August. AS reported in the
Times on Monday morning last, the report
OF MIR. Ii. W. Bishop, the master in chan
Gerry, TO whom was referred all the reports
of Osterberg, as well as Mr.. Whitehead's,
the auditor, since Osterberg came into
possession Of the road up to and including
March last was on Saturday last submit
ted to the court. An abstract of that re-
port was also given in these columns on
Monday. The question as to granting q
deed Of the road TO Mr.. Osterberg under
the masters sale is pending, and to GER,
tain extent was awaiting a decision until
the report OF Mr.. Bishop was returned
On yesterday morning Messrs. Trumbull
4 Church and Mr.. II. Crawford, repre-
senting the Union Trust company and
Heyman Osterberg, together with Mr.,
Hawley and Judge Wilson on the other
side,presented themselves before the court
and occupied the entire morning in their
arguments on the masters report as to its
approval AT the conclusion of the argu-
ments Judge Drummond delivered the fol-
lowing decision in which it will be seen
that he approves Of the masters report
and sees nothing to prevent their pro-
ceeding to the question of making the deed
Of sale:
JUDGE DRUMMoND's DECISION.
There may be question how far it may
be proper for the court 10 approve of the
report in all Of its details, because l sup
pose the agent would be accountable TO his
principal for his action. The only thing
that Is necessary to inquire into is whether
there is anything to interfere with the pro-
gress OF the completion OF the purchase,
so far as MIR. Osterberg is concerned, con
tanned in this report. There are various OBJ
jections taken by Mr.. Hawloy to the report
THE ROAD DON'T PAY.
One is that the road has gone be.
midland. Now suppose that to be So
Unless that result is produced by the
fault Of Mr.. Osterberg, certainly it is nc
reason why the court should arrest its
action in the completion of this degree
| don't know what more is meant by that
than this: That there was a balance due
at the time which perhaps it might be thai
the road had no immediate means or cash
in hand to discharge or pay. At any rate
there is nothing to show even if the road
had gone behindhand that it was neces-
sarily the fault Of Mr.. Osterberg. 1t ha:
large amount Of property deteriorating
The road is quite a long road, and Of course
the property is deteriorating, wearing ou
all the time,-and constantly requires re
pairs and renewals.
THAT INCIDENTAL ACCOUNT.
With regard 70 the incidental &C
count, in which there was 500,
900 or $4,000 entered, l don't know
that there is anything to show that there
has been any misrepresentation Of any fund
Indicated in that account, unless what is
stated in relation to the $40, 800 for which
two drafts were taken, one Of $1,000 aud
it is stated of paying the interest Per.
haps there is something that is a little
irregular about the taking of those drafts,
and without explanation there might be
something apparently wrong, but Mr..
Osterberg makes an explanation which
under the circumstances, perhaps, ought
to be regarded as not unsatisfactory. The
money was appropriated, as he says, not for
the payment of the interest as it originally
intended, but was paid into court for the
purpose Of making up an amount sufficient
to make pro-rata payment. At any rate,
L don't see how the court can declare that
there was misappropriation Of the funds,
because, even admitting that there was
an irregularity in the original ac-
count, still the money according to the
account OF Mr.. Osterbcrg's statement has
gone TO the benefit Of the bondholders and
OF the Frankfort committee. Then again
l don't know that we ought to lose sight
entirely of the peculiar position which Mr.
Osterberg occupied. He probably looked
upon the road as in one sense entirely
within his control, and he had the right to
exercise the control which an owner would
be supposed to exercise over it. 1t is true
the court retained q certain power and
authority, which, however, it was under.
stood, was to terminate upon the payment
oil the purchase money. His principals
were abroad, far off,-and he might have
thought that he could exercise an unusual
discretion in the agency Of trusteeship with
which he was clothed,
THE SURVEYS,
l suppose, technically speaking, perhaps
the appropriation which was made of
SUN Of money for the survey Of the route
proposed as an extension of the road TO
Byron to connect with the Chicago q
Pacihc road was without perhaps due
authority. 1t was something such as that
his principals might have called upon him
Tor an account, and he could only say it
was something by way of experiment,
which might ultimately become beneficial
to the road by showing that an extension
could be made In the interests of the road
so as to produce connection with Chicago
THAT ST. LOUIS EXCURSION.
That is something of the same kind as the
expenditure Of SO considerable sum of
money in the payment of the expenses of
this excursion. Technically speaking.
perhaps, under the circumstances of the
case, he was not authorized to make such
an expenditure, but at the utmost this was
only mistake Of judgment. 1t was not a
case OF the appropriation of money to him
sell, putting it In his own pocket. In
other words IN tuoc moi M. 49,, L - = :,