The New York herald., 1876-02-02
DUNCAN, SHERMAN & co.

Another motion 20 vacate the order of against
Duncan, Sherman 4 Co. was argued yesterday before
Judge Barrett, in Supreme Court Chambers in the
suit Of Washington Roeblng and others against the
company An order Of arrest originally granted
by Judge Lawrence in this action against the defend
ants They arrested on the 9th of October last
and gave bail Tho defendants then moved on the 18th
Of October last before tho judge, volumnous
papers such order After argument and sub
mission, Judge Lawrence December last denied the
defendants motion with COSTS thus maintaining the
order Of arrest and delivering elaborate opinion.
Aftcr the order had been entered denying the motion
related, defendants moved for leave TO renew,
which was granted In the meantime judgment had
been entered The defendants served now aindavits
and upon the motion coming on last week Mr. Henry
H. Morange counsel for plaintiffs, raised the prc m
nary objections that the motion could not be made after
entry Of judgment where the had been made
twenty days before judgment. The Court held that
the point was VOL taken bat opened the iudg.
mept 70 enable the motion 10 be heard, and the
motion accordingly yesterday argued its merits
Nr Larocque counsel for defendants read afdavis TO
the effect that tho banking house had never belonged
TO the rm as at present constituted but TO the former
nTm OF Duncan, sherman Co., and that William b.
Duncan owned bot onc.thlrd interest therein: that
the deeds TO Alexander Duncan in 1865 we're made in
good faith and that the defendants be held re-
sponsible for the failure not TO record that the de-
iendants bad large deposits in the Union Bank of Lon
don at the time they sold the exchange TO plaintiffs
and that u the bank did not pay the dran was no,
thor fauit Mr.. Morange, on the plaintiffs behalf
read afdavits showing that IN JANUARY 1875 the de-
fcndant Duncan had sworn before the Commissioners
Of Taxes that the property Nos and II Nassau street
was his own, and claimed deduction OF SEQ 600
Which was accorded him; that the deed
q. the Lyccum had been executed IN
blank and Alexander Duncsns name
inserted Just before the record ia July 1873 and the
allegations were made In reference TO the assign
ment OF certain mortgages; that the defendants failed
10 produce any c0rrobOratng sfhdarits, papers
letters from the Union Bank OF London although three
months had elapsed since the of ,ondan that
the papers OF dcicudant showed satisfactory data
they TO obtain, the relief much sought
for; that even II they had obtained a loan Il would
have been but plungiDg themselves deeper into an
abyss OF insolvency which had long existed The
spcctiye counsel supported their respective positions
great length Mr. M0range expressing the conviction
that the Of Duncan, Sherman x Co could exert
no potent spell in courts. and that TO yacate the
would diminish the respect which the community
tertancd fcr the courts Of justice
MI larocquc made In the course OF his concluding
argument strong point of the fact that when Duncan
sherman Co closed the doors Of their banking
house Their credit was unlimited that their stand
granite; that the only object Of suspendng payments
at the time they did save everything TO their
creditors IL being ascertaucd that owing to the great
shrnkage in values, there possibility that they
would not be able 70 meet their Liabilities and that
with view 20 save their creditors TO the furthest ex
tent in their power each member Of the nrm cave up
all he possessed. even TO his personal propertv
After hearing the argument which was substantially
abe tho original notion Judge Barrett took
the papers, rcseryng his decision.
TESTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL.
In he United States Circuit cour, yesterday sui,
,,s. commenced by Augustus D Leighton against
Nessra Birch, wanbold Baekus. prOnrisIUss Of The