The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-01-31

sequenty the reporter was shown "A sworn statement
Jcct IN the State OF New York which FULLY confirmed
Mr. Little's position.
ANOTHER MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE
PEOPLES SUIT.
When the OF The People OF the State OF New
York VS.. The Erie Railway Company was called In
Supreme Court, Chambers, by Judge Lawrence, yes
terday, A. A. Kedfed. in behalf OF the defendants,
addressed tho Court on motion asking for leave
enter an order disseminating that suit In accordance
With consent given by Attorney General Pratt
November, 1875. Counsel SAID that the motion had
already been made before Judge Barrett ana tho
question be first decided was whether tho present
Attorney General had made up his mind to oppose II
not
Peter b. Olncy representing Attorney General
Schoonmaker, stated that he had been Instructed by
that Official to oppose tho motion, and proceeded to
set forth the grounds which such opposition was
based.
In support OF his motion Mr.. Redned read an da-
Wits OF W. W. Mcfarland, counsel for the Erie Rail-
way Company, aud also those OF Dorman b. Eaton
William NJ Brown and Others detailing at length the
character aud progress OF the SUIT and the reasons
why IL should be discontinued
Judge Lawrence said ne would like to hear why tho
present Attorney General had not the right with
draw The stipulation OF his predecessor IN directing
an order OF discontnuance before It was acted
Mr Olncy read an affidavit OF eX-AttorDey General
iOfth the reasons why he declined
recommend the order of discontinuance signed by
Attorney General Pratt Among other things 1t
stated that the plaintiffs had not had fair hear
ing III the case when the order alluded TO
was signed. Counsel went state
that when such order was appnei Tor notice WAS
gwen to the plaintiffs and yet the deleDuants want
the suit discontinued ana the receiver aud hs sure
ties discharged from further responsibility. rhe
Attorney General counsel SAID, simply asked Tor an
accounting OF his trust by Receiver Jewctt before
tho latter IS relieved from his Obligations.
The Court mere again inmated that all IL wanted TO
M In pt,xy, IN
revoke u stipulation entered into by "A predecessor
before IL had been acted upon.
II. IL. Turner, counsel Tor the Farmers Loan and
Trust Company, trustee, read portions of an affidavit
consenting 10 tue d'scontnuance Of tins suit. 10
question by MI Olney as to whether the ahdavt sot
orth that the company last mentioned in favor OF
the reorganization scheme Mr.. Turner replied the
negative adding that, in effect, such the case.
THREE ATTORNEY GENERALS.
MIR. Reohcld said the case vas an anomalous one.
Here we have three Attorney Generalsl'ratt. FAR
CHILD aud Schoonnaker Fairchild wants 10 revoke
tho order OF Pratt and Schoonmaker does
not know what to do III tue matter Coun-
sol SAID he never doubted that when
attorney In case had made solemn stipulation with
the lawyer on the opposite side, and the latter hav
ns accepted it In good faith and had acted upon tor
II couple years. that the party making such stipu-
ntion could, alter the expiration OF thu timc, como
into court anu repudate It. He also cited
In support oil his position.
M. Olney said that sooner bad the defendants
Obtained tho order OF discontinuance IN November
1875, than they abandoned 1t, and a month Iater
they entered au order appointing james q. spencer
referee. Six months subsequently they brought suit
aSainSt james Mcueury 10 recover ABOUT 5000 QUO,
and saying that Jcwet IS receiver IN the peoples
1t therefore must be he'd that they abandoned this
dIscoLtInuaucc and Tor reasons which, they now ay
IN their AFFIDAVIT. are not necessary to state. Judge
Pratt never Intended that this SUIT should
tnued without FIRST having accounting by the re-
cover; he is too good Il lawyer tor that so tar as
the accounting IS concerned II Is evident that he
never intended TO discontinue the suit The only
question at issue Is whether the Attorney General
tie rght 10 Investigate the accounts of Receiver
JewctL
Judge Lawrence wanted to know why, II counsel Tor
the receiver wanted the SUIT ascontnucd they have
since the consent OF Attorney General Pratt was gwen
entered orders rs though tho suit was sim alive.
Mr.. Reu6cld REPLIED saying that such orders mad
been entered anu challenged counsel for the Attorney
General to produce them. This Mr. Oncy did, showing
that order bad been entered December, 1873 an
others then. After an explanation by Mr. Redncd
that orders In conflicting with the
order OF ontinuance. the Court took the papers.
reserving Its decision.