The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-12-08
THE ERIE-DRINGER FIGHT.

DEFEAT OF THE PRINCE OF JUNKMEN BY THE
RAILROAD coRpoRATIoN-A COSTLY LITIGATIo2
OVER OLD IRON.
The Erie -Drnger case a fight over old iron one OF
the most remarkable tried in New Jersey.
decided yesterday in the Court of Errors and
Appeal. This has been pending for nearly three
years and has been most stubbornly fought by both
parties. the of the Erie having been taxed
to prove u conspiracy between sigmond Drnger and
certain employees Of the road TO plumber the company
OF many thousand dollars in the sale to Dringer oe
the scrap from the Erie shops. During this expen-
sive litigation Mr.. Drnger has been heavily backed
BY his wealthy friends of the Israetsh persuasion
who. now that the case has been decided adversely
will be losers to the extent of thousands
When the news arrived yesterday at Paterson
Drngers friends and hackers thunderstrucks
everybody was confident that Dringer would win.
Up to this time every decision has been in his favon
and against the Erie. His friends also alarmed
for his safety he had gone Trenton in the early
morning from his home at Paterson, promising his
friends to telegraph the result at the earliest possible
moment and yet up to late hour last evening moth.
ing had been heard from him. What made the ape
preensions OF his friends more lively is the fact that
he had declared If the went against him he would
not leave Trenton alive. There is abundant for
desperation. as this man, prosperous is now
more than ruined his property is all swept away
may yet be carried to the United States Court.
sultation in reference thereto having been held last
evening in Paterson by Dringers friends who regard
him victim in all this litigation.
DRINGERs HISTORY.
Sigismtnd Dringer Is now over forty years of ages
he has an eye like an eagle and IL perhaps of the
shrewdest business in this country. though hd
neither read nor write. He came from the neigl-
borhood Of Cracow, Poland about eleven years ago.
and for about two after his arrival drove junA
wagon for MAX Brhnl, of Newark, for $40 week
Then he set up for himself, went to Paterson, estab
isheda yard invented machinery to cut up old scrap
whereby he could utilize that which formerly
considered nearly worthless gained the confidence OF
all classes Of business men, anassed much wealth and
finally secured the handling of the immense amount OF
scrap lying i'll the various shops of the Erie Conn
pany, great portion Of which was the Accommodations
OF years other dealer being able to make any use
of it. He began at the bottom round" but he had
not been in business more than six years
when he was known the largest dealer in tha
United States. and in fair way to control tho
market. He was at this period Immediately prior to
mem He supplied foundries and folIing mills in.
every part of the land. and was regarded 'mer-
toned integrity He managed his business with
consummate shrewdness and all his transactions
seemed to prosper; In 1873 when iron material took
hand and the rise being from about $2l to s45 and
| in cases even more a ton, he realized oyer
100000 i'll few weeks.
| ORIGIN OF THE FIGHT.
In March. 1876 when the Erie litigation commenced
his business received the check from which il has
not recovered Dringer had hand five thou
sand tons of scrap and about two Thousand tons of
the Erie and of the bones of contention. At this
date he owed the Erie about $4,000 $4,000 Of which
would have been lost to the company but for his
honestyiin correcting their erroneous account
against themselves, and the attorney for the road
made sudden demand on Dringer for the wholas
amount within four days. The transactions with
the company had been heavy, the payments heavy
tween the Erie and Drnger which had not before
pressed He could not meet this sudden demand thai
result. as it seems OF afidayits made by rival IRON
ruin him with the Erie. These afhdavits implicated
Dringer and several employees of the Erie in positions
of trust on the road in conspiracy to defraud tho
| company. Colonel Henry Bowman, General Pur.
chasing Agent of the Erie, named as especially
culpable it being recited that Bowman had sold to-
Dringer roo tons of wheels at $40 ton. when
he was authorized to sell but 1000 tons and at not
! less than sal. General Superintendent Bowen at
instituted proceedings, and upon the aiidavits
presented Chancellor Runyon granted an i'm
junction April /, 1876. closing Dringcrs business:
he also appointed receiver. who is still in
charge. This action deadlocked Dringer's transact
tions and left him with heavy stock whom the mar
OF the parties above named. who testified that
they had knowledge OF the removal large Quantities
of iron from Dringers yards in the night time, tina
latter brought before the Chancellor for cons
tempt but the charge was not sustained upon exams
pRINGER WINS THE FIRST FALL.
In May, 1876. partial hearing was had before tha
Chancellor motion to dissolve the injunction.
when il was ordered that full hearing testimony be-
had the Vice Chancellor in the next November.
This had and continued, with several postpone
ments to January H. 1877. Messrs. Cortlandt and
r. Wayne Parker appeared for the Erie, and Messrs-
i N.
for Dringer and Colonel Henry Bowman. Hundreds OF.
witnesses examined and books of accounts over
hauled without end. Employees of the road testified
to Drngcrs alleged underground proceedings accus-
| ing him of having paid spies at every important
point the road and even i'll the office OF Receiver
Jewett ut headquarters 1t was made to appear-if
these witnesses to be credtedthat Dringer had
defraudcd the Erie out of more than 100000. Still
the Vice Chancellor rendered his decision, nine
months later. in favor OF defendants all points.
| The injunction. however, was not removed because
| the Erie ut once gave notice of appeals
| and this allowed, with the provisa
| that the company must be prepared to argue
the mt the next term of the Court Of Errors But
il was reached ut the next tcrm the next ann
1t was not until last June that argument was finally
heard. Four days consumed in this important
matter and the thoroughly reviewed, and them
the decision reserved until the November term.
decision not announced until yesterday. as abova
| noted.
The has been costly for both parties. tho
cost of litigation being estimated at not less than
$3.50 900. of which the Erie has probably expended.
| over 100000 and Dringer about 100000, the!
latter almost entirely tho advances of his friends.
But this represents but small portion of the actual
loss 10 Dringer His stock in the yards ut Paterson
at the the injunction placed-and IL is there
scrap Car axles have deprecated in the time that
has elapsed from S35 to s23; wrought scrap, FROM
49, so to S2; scrap from S2l to S14 and all other
material in proportion Besides this. there Is the in-
tcrest this investment the enforced dleness, the
wear aud tear mind and body the loss of his repu
tation for all Of which, had he been successful in
this suit would have claimed of the Erie Company3
/ s25O,o00 damages.
pIuT JcEpENT TANINANvTrES