The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-19
Tenth National Bank Stock Transferred BY
James H. lnSsrsOll 10 His Father.
TELEGRAPH PATENTS AND JAY GOULD.
Judicial Investigation Into One Of Subsidy
Pomeroy's Pet Railroad Schemes.
INTERESTING STOLEN BOND CASE.
Heavy Discount on the Profits Of
the Sheriff7s Office.


In the palmy Ring days James H. Ingcrsol, in add-
ton TO being OF tho directors Of the Tenth Ma
tons Bank Of this city. tho owner Of 600 shares
OF the capital stock she amount Of the capital stock
that time being 81 900 and the shares 500 each.
Lorin Ingcrsoll the father Of James II. Ingcrsoll,
claims that October. 1871, he purchased from the
latter the shares in question, and demanded, he al
reyes, transfer Of tho to his tho books
Of the bank, which request however, not CON-
piled with In tho early part Of the present year the
capital stock OF the bank was reduced $500 0oo
Ihercupon Mr. Lorn Ingersoll further alleges, he
rendered his old certificate and demanded ono
conforming the reduction the capital stock This
the bank refused accept The result has been the
bringing Mr. Lorin Ingerso against the bank,
In which he asks transfer of 800 shares OF the reduced
capital stock standing onthe books OF the bank he
name OF James H. Ingersou, and that certificate
therefor DO issued TO him. In his complaint he
further demands that tho bank pay to HIM forty per
cent In cash upon the amount value Of his Stock to-
gether with 81 500 dividend in gold his pro rata share
upon tho dividend paid in January, 1874
On behalf Of the bank 70 answer has yet teon put
In TO this complaint The up yesterday before
Judge Spcr, holding Superior Court Special Term.
Mr. Amos =. Hull appeared on behalf OF Mr.. lngcrsoll
..onaI Bank The latter insisted that owing 70 the
peculiar features OF the II would require good
deal OF time TO prepare an answer He claimed tiot
Mr.. Lorn Ingersoll had purchased this stock OH his
aud that his had been connected with the Ring
and nmated because the had been connected with
the Ring that the father must be in way
blame. Mr. Hull, in behalf Of the plaintiff contended
that II irregular 10 go before judge not sitting in
chambers and obtain an OK pare order extending time
after another judge had onco denied the extension
He said further that he had read OF doctrine which
inflicted tho sins Of tho fathers upon the children %
Of that doctrine having retroactive application
and furnishing the father tor the alleged faults OF the
Client Mr.. Lorn Ingersoli, for years, and knew
him to be most upright and conscientious man.
Besides, the bank for which he is attorney in
tercsted in this than Mr.. Lorin Ingersoll; but
matter OF form, no compelled bring the suit in
the name OF Mr. Ingersoll. He thou went on 10
plaiH that suit was brought in behalf Of the city
nearly two years ago against Ingersoll Watson Co..
of which firm Mr.. Lorin Ingers0ll partner; that
Mr. Ingcrso then submitted his books and papers to
the cxaminaton OF MI. wheeler II Pockham' the
counsel for the city, and that after brief examination
the case Withdrawn at the instance Of Mr.. Peck
ham, Judge Speir refused TO put of tho case and the
action was put down Tor trial for next Tuesday
As already stated, answer has yet been made to
gested by the remarks OF Mr. Work, reported above
that the principal ground of defence IS that there
no bona nde transfer Of the stock In question: that Mr.
consequently. that tho plaintiff has ground Tor
bringing the present suit
CENTRAL BRANCH, UNION PACIFIC.
Tho suit OF Samuel L. Trcdwoll against Ralph NJ
Term, Supreme Court yesterday before Judge Larre-
This suit, often referred within the past
three years. the construction of tho Atchison
and Pixies Peak Railroad and accounting of the CO.
partnership assets under what is known the Osborn
contract. printed copy Of the contract made be-
tween William Osborn and the Atchison and Pixies
Peak Railroad Company, dated May 1885, and agree
ments between the parties interested therein, were
produced, the substance of which has already been
given in the HERALD
Mr.. James wadsworth was tho FIRST witness called,
and examined by Mr. $. c. Mount OF counsel for the
plaintiff In his direct examination he affirmed in de-
tail the contract referred to- On his examine
lion the defendants offered in evidence resolution or
The railroad company passed May s, 1865, relating to
the execution of this This was objected to
by Mr.. William A. Beach, counsel for tho paliutif
Judge Fullerton for the defendants insisted that IL
admissible to show that the contract VOID ms
being made by the directors OF railroad company who
themselves to be interested In the
slgnecs Mr. Beach INSISTED that II nadmissibIc on
the ground that IT was not proper examina-
ton and further that tho question raised in this it-
CATION might we'll Drought forward and settled at
and that the question OF the validity OF tho
tract had no relevancy 10 tho issues involved in this
trial. that the suit brought for dissolution oil tho
roparnershp formed for building the road and an ac-
counting among the copartners; that as it un-
Of them had the right to decree dssovng the CO.
partnership, winding up It's affairs, paying It's debts
ana ulViufnG the prOntS any, tna the validity
contract might arise In action by the after
hts appointment in this suit against the railroad
pany. " the company choose TO question IL that the
company party to this action; that In action
Tor accounting among partners but the part
ners themselves are proper parties 10 the SUIT but
that the defendants nasty in questioning the
validity Of the contract and that all the
we're partners in the contract. and. therefore
10 one was injured, bat all alike were bene
tied Judge Larrcnoro stated that the defend
Ints in their answer set up allrmatvely the
Iceuce that the contract never performed,
company were admissible II appeared by the min
ntes that the directors OF the company who made
lis Gaylord, Efingham II. Nichols James wads
worth, Benjamin stringIelow. or Bleeding Kansas
memory; o: b Gum, engineer Of the company, and
Charles 7. Ware, and further exam nation
II appeared that OF these. Ware Strlngicllow and
Eunn, bad no interest in the contract and the
other directors bad. Among the exhibits read in
evidence besides the contracts were letters from VIII
lis Gaylord treasurer OF tho tractors to James
wadsworth, company contractor. calling for meetings
pr the contractors to provide for the building
pf the road; receipts from Gaylord Of tho
contractors, for money paid In on stock subscnp-
defendant, K N. Pomcroy, relating 10 sales made by
him Of interest In tho contract 10 parties In Bos-
Day and George s Hale. appointed on the part o.
The contractors to ind out what the existing obi
cations for which Gaylord was allowed IN the
contract eight and enc quarter per cent q the bonds
and one.eghth ofthc stock, who rcpou(ed that Gay
lors said that how he had used tho bonds hc con-
sd6red his business and not that Of any one else.
IL further appeared by the report that nearly
600, 900 had been expended In buiIng the by
Mr.. Gaylord while he treasurer Tor the con-
tractors A letter was also shown from SIR. Charles
Gould, OF juno 1868, nquiring why the road, though
completed in January 1865. sub remained In Osborns
hands, and calling upon the contractors to settle up
Their accounts with Osborn.
AZ this point the Court adjourned. The cxamina-
sion will DO resumed to-day.
TELEGRAPH PATENTS LITIGATION.
suit in equity has been brought in the United
states Circuit Court by George Harrington aud Thomas
A. Edison against the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph
Company and Jay Gould. The plaintiffs claim TO hold
The title to Edisons Inventions Of rnnroxemenis in