The New York herald., 1877-10-26
THE COURTS.
Judgment in the Quicksilver Min.
ing Company Suit.
PURIFYING THE BAR
Fight for the Profits of a Rich
Street Paving Job.
A VOICE FROM THE TOMBS.

The Supreme Court, General Term, Chief Justice
Davis and Judges Brady and Daniels being on the
Bench. gave yesterday the Hnal judgmen. the
OF George L. Kent against the Quicksilver Mining Com
pany. Owing the special importance attaching the
case the judgment Is given below full In u the
Court clearly upholds tire preferred stock, and do
clares Its holders be entitled receive Of the
net earnings Of the company per cent interest
since the lst OF May, 1870. Tho judgment also en-
JOINS tho company and It's directors from doing or
procuring any act bo dono which in any wise inter-
feres with the rights Of the preferred stockholders:
The the said defendants from judgments
18th day Of January. 1876 having heard
ma .yn John BarI OF counsel Tor the sppoan.s and
and deliberation thereupon having
Respondent. by his complaint hasns prayed that the
ing any further issue Of shares OF preferred stock and from
The Right 10 share the earnings Of The said
s ncs MAY so 80 which the
company existng and the therein having
This court what the construction Of ,hsr Corporate
s h 4ha IN 'as
And appearing this Court from tho made In this
plaintiff at the time of the Of this suit
U;eupsay. ss know known sssie.fsa .hs:ss. also
stock, held owned stil holds and owns csrt
OF stock And iurther appearing that the own
s ., % s shares % Of the common Of said company
aow said company TO raise and procure money by issuing
Of common should be fer that purpose
within the PEI period Of Time prescribed and mentioned In
o si tue % ~ @
10 upon Zach share 50 snrrende and that the e7s Of
said e said
and IN :. .he authority 50 conferred upon II by
the of 2s3 of the said company
share surrendered and that the said company
,aea IN place .n ea number Of
that, the owners and holders thereof should out
per each Of preferred shares.
'as s a oIss oS .nd
ares by way Of dividends in the residue Of the Of
decided that said shares
me Sos % .ns s BY
were TO that extent valid and binding the said
.rsaon and also the Of other tina. IN
In creating the said preferred shares And tho said eon
Dany having after the Issuing Of said preferred shares
Of common and tho issue oi oihor shares Of
resolution and amendment or the surrender OF other
share. stock ana for the issuing place thereof
lion and amendment And tho plaintiff having objected to
Without his or authority such
issue Of re- shares would be ana
to interest and dividends his preferred stock which
Now motion d Porter. Lovrsy, Goren Stone res
dssr . s % doth M suas
der the resolution adopted February 1870, and the
,s'sa are ysd and binding s.s said
other stock known the holders and Of
which have subsequently, assented to such in
omissions from disputng the same and iha.
against said stock voting there
lo or subsequently assentng thereto or ratying the
And Is further ordered. adudsed and decreed that for
appealed from he and the 4. hereby iGings s
and s that The said pan; George Kent re-
= Bayiis. William Il Drew Eugene n Robinson. James
e. aaa Ed
mn nc s s' n ,s bis and
hon therefor; aud that the defendants and each Of
doing or procuring 80 be Done act thing which
& Ss m s. m as met ss
the plaintiff Is or may bo entitled or Interested owner Of
existing
MOTION TO DISBAR Il. B. ELDRIDGE.
Tho details of the contest will OF the late
Alfred Barmore have already been fully published in
the HERALD. SIR. Barmore lett, as Will be remem-
bcrcd, estate valued at about ST. $780, O00 The fea
bure Of the will which led to tho legal controversy was
bhe testator enectually disnheriting his daughter
Emma the wife OF Titus b. Eldridge, lawyer leaving
her only the interest OF $4,000 per annum. Mr..
Eldrldge took an active part IN the effort
TO break tho will 1t is alleged that he procured
false testimony and In various ways showed artful
ana guilty duplicy IN managing the case. Alter the
nna decision arragning his professional character
motion made to disbar him Tnesc proceedings
were instituted by the Bar Association and Mr. Lewis
L. Delaeld was chosen to present the matter before
the Supreme Court, General Term, where tho
lore a iuu Bench. Mr. DelaGeld mado a
very lengthy argument. concluding as follows :-.It
Is not pity, II Is charity condone the iauls OF
The lawyer who is rocrcant to trust II is nothing
but mawksh sentiment that can cxtenuate or pardon
those crimes Many OF the difficulties Of this problem
hhy bee he ufau IaW So.
ciety OF LONDON at whose instance In year ASIA
SIX solicitors stricken IRON The rolls, three
we're referred to masters tor report and iour were
abandoned In consequences oil the flight OF the deiin-
quents In the State OF Now York is rare to disbar
IN attorney; but the difference Is due TO moral weak
ness ana not 70 any superiority oi our attorneys
over their English brethren. Tho best IN
lawyer should be treated the highest respect ana
the bad punished with the utmost severity Thus
alone can the Bar be purged OF its dross and raised
the position II should hold In determining
these coses courts should be cold as lcicles
and vigorously just. Lawyers are intrusted
by tie state with great and valuable monopoly aud
unusual immunities. They alone allowed to repre-
the people Ia the pursuit defence
OF fortune; they alone oppose barrier perseculion
and oppressiou ana almost every man at some period
OF his lie must depend upon them ia defence
pursuit OF properly or lie or rights dearer
dear, doctor however learned Is IN those energen-
ccs, permitted TO intervene The state distinctly says
that aI OF these matters the citizen who pro-
tect himself shall employ a lawyer and mono other.
The monopoly absolute the privilege Is exclusive.
III return lOr TINS monopoly tncy must nave approved
Character and learning The moment these considera-
lions fail, the privilege should The great truth
which must ever govern those cases Is that OF those
whom much Is gwen much shall be required lie
was followed by exJudgc Fithian, who also spoke at
great length champoEng TO the best OF his abty the
cause OF bis client Judge Fithian stated that tho
report OF the referee was ia iavor OF Mr.. Eldridgc,
aequitng him Of all improper intent that the referee
found the loans were 100 insignificant an amount
TO have any idea OF bribery; BESIDES that thcy
were effected in some Instances alter the
trial OF tho cause. He stated further that
Mr. Eldridge also proved, and that 1t was
not disputed that Wheeler received some SlO0O0 TO
destroy his own testimony; that was also proved
that most OF the witnesses offered against him we're
uisreputase characters-one "A panel thief; Fisher,
exoonvict and professional perjurerand that sew.
eral other parties swore under assumed names aud
that not Que Of these witnesses made their appearance
TO give oral testimony.
Judge Fithian spoke nearly hour, and will re.
sumo his argument on next Wednesday,
The NICHOLSON PAVEMENT.
In connection with the laying OF tho Nicolson pave.