The New York herald., 1878-10-29
AFTER YEARS OF LITIGATION.

CHANCELLOR RuNYoN's SWEEPING DEcIsIoI
AGAINST THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COM
PANY-A CHARGE or ATTEMPTED FRAUD.
An important decision has just been rendered b.
Chancellor Theodore Runyon which bears terribly
against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and 10
strong terms accuses n OF having attempted 70 por
pstrate fraud New Jersey Court OF cnsooery.
The 10 thai Of Andrew W. Cook VI. George n.
Chapman.
Last July Cook obtained from the Court injunc.
uon' Restraining Chapman from prosecuting oertais
SUITS tho Virginia against the Pnssburg and
stcubonvilio Railroad Company osensbIy, but really
against the Pennsyivania Company, sb being the
lossee Under the injunction Meredith Dickinson
was appointed receiver. Tho New Jersey Cours, IN
order 10 secure all parties. required Cook ~ ais
bond Tor $4,000. binding him 70 pay Chapman any
damage. ;sa ms1s % s snosn ne ~ rsssos
tho bondsnen Doing A. L. Dennis. president OF the
New Jersey United Railroad Company, now the New
Jersey division merely OF the Pennsyivnnia company,
and Mr. Ira NJ Harrison, Anothsr wealthy PennsyIvs
mia Railroad man.
Mr.. Chapman, boloro the Chancellor, charged that
Cook was mere ngurehsad for tDe railway oompauy3
false gotten up ana that because OF tho In
junction suffered great loss He prayed tnAs tne
be required pay court $4,000 70 sooars MIN
his losses. The injunction was dissolved.
THx cHAxUKLLoR's DECISION
And now tue msas Of The masler-ths Chans
cellor's decision. In u he decidcs that the real
party IN tbe suit Is the Pcnnsy lvania Railroad Com
pany and adjudgos u guilty OF attempt IN this
proceeding to his court ior tho purpose Of deraud.
Ing Chapman out OF tho Judgment obtained IN me
supreme Court oil West Virginia against one OF their
branches the PItisburg ana Stuben ve Railroad Conn
pany, for 4293, ,4S1 49, "rhe evidence 10 the cass,n
ho says. snows that Mr. Cnapman altor ten years OF
litigation win the Pennsylvania Railroad Company,
recovered this judgment upon contractors claims
and coupon bonds which had purchased. ID II clear
from tho evidence tnat the complainant sought ~
means Of this suit to accomplish purpose totally
different from wnich the proceedings themselves
ioa t4a hv faia ~d GbaO ma q
restrained from prosecuting mis- SUIT In West Vir.
ginia and that a receiver be appointed. Butths real
object 10 Toll aud defeat Chapman In hts sutts 70
the end that the claims themselves, which The com.
plainant himself says were just, might DO deieated
Tho real decndant In tho Wost virginia suits The
pulo this suit theira IL was merely one Of tho
netnods OF defence which they adopted against the
claims which Chapman WIS prosecuting ltwa IN iact,
not the compainant who applied Tor The injunction,
but they who appeared In his garD borrowed for the
occasion. IL the Psnnsy lvaua Railroad Company
VINO instituted tho suit ana who employed anu paid
tho solicitor and counsellor who acted behalf ol
the complainant IL was they who furnisned the
uuds of the receiver and paid all the expenses of the
SUIT. aud, whom the solicitor whom they had on.
ployed TO bring the sut declined further 20 act In H.
IL was they whosuDderlook to employ another In hm
stead Their object was apparent avowed TO nrst
use tho compiaaant and bis letters basis open
the juugmons In West Virginia, to let In new svi.
denoe, ana wnsn they tailed IN that this suit was
brought aud II he was successful he was 10 receive
$6O,OvO, as the evidence shows w. J. Howard, the
counsel for the PenusyI yIvauia Railroad Co ompany VINO
engineered the proceedings, testified that the
painant, II This suit successful, was trust
his compensation, not 10 any legal demand upon
tho company, but to the generosity OF the PennsyL
vania Railroad Company merely"
Therefore the Chancellor oraers tho bond forfeited
and the smount OF Chapmsn's loss bo asocrtsined
10 the Court OF Chanocry In New Jersey legal or
clcs this decision IS regarded one OF the most
startling aud imporlant ever pronounced by the
Chancellor