New-York tribune., 1876-02-01
THE COURTS.
THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD.
EFFORT TO PREVENT TIE TRANSFER or CONTROL
ARGUMENT BEFORE JUDGE BARRETT.

ARGUMENT BEFORE JUDGE BARRETT.
The argument of the motion in the case OF
william Buckley against Henry Havemeyer and others
was ended yesterday before Judge Barrett in Supreme
Court Chambers. Tho plaintiff claimed that the DEFEND
ants were elected directors OF the Long Island Railroad
last year by combination O stockholders against OhVer
Charck the understanding that they should suDser'e
tue electns them that they were now
having control OF large portion or the stocK aDoue W
sell out under an arrangement to the managers Of the
rival Long Island roads and part OF the arrange
ment were resign favor OF such directors as the man
agement OF those rival roads might desire. temporary
4 junction was granted reatranns the deiendGnts from
any action looking TO giving up control or the roao'
but this gas modified far to permit the deenAh'S
10 sell their stock, and under the modhcation S0oVo
shares majority OF the GG,COO shares. have been sou
TO Adolf Pop enbusen. The chief defendants are Henry
aud John c. Havemcyer. The plaintiff has only 22o
shares, but H. o. Havemeyer fully supports his COM
plalnt claiming that he controls II 900 shares
On the argument yesterday the formal answer OF Gil
the defendants put in, denying any agreement WI"
ony stockhoder to operate the road for their special
benefit though admitting that there was combination
to tko the road of Oliver CharicRs hands, ana deny
ing formally any intention TO transfer the control of he
company to any other companies. Henry ana Jo!'H
c. Hayemeyer say that they ala not ue-
sire TO transfer their stock, hut under pressure
from other stockhOldcrs and thinking IL Tor the DSl io
all they acceded to sale stock which mas peen cor
smnatcd but it wss part Of the agreement that ey
hord transfer the control 81 tho road e. other conpa
nies The other defendants put in aihd VII suOStih
tally to the sano effect and alleging That they 90 io'
propoeo TO rcsIgD their positions AZ drectors
ON the opening OF the argument Judge Barrett ashed
the C unset Of the plaintiff whether the injunction
ncanst any action looking transfer OF tho coaol OF
the Go pany not rather vague Could court pro,
scribe a mere line % pocyf hr har'il, n fciy, ga"
bry a.ked tie prohibition generally OF an Illegal trans
fer Of railroad company 10 the con ro OF
rn1Inuy Whether any acts zone ny M ~
Ten ni,i9 were violation Of tn rrot1piftpn Oh
tbc ou- r,ignt be- q question: but the pr0h'1i"n WIS
rirarIy "a IN; and within the Courts pGNor i' answer
VS. = .,,e indefinite and cySs!ye. " sun idntHy ah-
Dftt. IN. sale of the controlling Interest to POpPihu
..u hy prc.rr4ngruent among the directors. Al Us
gtuck cu,i an agreement Tor the resignation pf tne
dir C,,ir. aud hat uglt we'll have b',u aiic asIte.
mani 4 director Egd moro right ~ resign hs h'la'
tau any other trustee ami only iOr cause &uu hls SUP
t.tuir could Hmly b0 pDOuieG only OY Stockhoi'iS
Mr. castor in n.ycT arg red that tho sale of t' st"
having fa,n cuu7Iinn4, -, the only matters on ~lI''
Di4J8 wero llS it-i1hS''Vn W
dr; ant, and th'r UoU'ce An ~ uh',@uI. @ ,-. 'a,
c,yo ,rus y-ituouf a Brer,drn ami In fact pe;os'er
n,s Auu 10 had been heard or that IA Ju!o.."I
,.or!d l.. a,. S. q uircior rcs FH.uS. Nas ~ - ny
tr.,..it toT.ldiug = director 10 rc-lgnf JfN-" i'-r
rrtr.. in..e cant be- Mr.. Carter, rSuining, f|uon
al br .uIy o--hlc ground tn eiJUih dlfr' tpf 4i'i
s gli!u uust De- his positive agreement y" c'hthHei III
i lul. ~; las nliuo trrn, and no such ngrech.h' wa
suOan ng uict, ndrd ~ th!s e 80. .. =, ,,., 49,,
= IIur, ra,. ivri is decision. Luther X MASH ap-
-. -d fnr uiaui ~ james G, Carter FOR CeiCnIaAt"
iI4yvincy ycr; L.iiU loOt iof oJ-cr deIcAd.-L'''