The New York herald., 1878-07-11
THE COURTS.
An Iron Company's Suit Against the
Metropolitan Elevated Road.
A BROKEN ALLIANCE.
Interesting Question Raised in Habeas
Corpus Proceedings.

Judge Sedgwick. OF the Superior Court, yesterday
rendered decision IN The suit Of the New England
Iron Company against tho Now York Loan and I'm
provement Company. implicated with the Gilbert
Esva.ed Railroad Company, which was brought TO
recover some $4,000 600 Tor aiding and abetting the
Gilbert Company In the breach OF contract Tor the
furnishing Of iron for the building of the road Tho
came before Judge Ssdgwick on motion 10 dts
miss petinon made on behalf Of the plaintiffs Tor
discovery OF dofendants' papers and books, which
petition set forth that knowledge Of the contents
the minute books OF the Gilbert Company and other
papers In the custody OF tho deendants-thc Loan
and improvement Company-was necessary 10 prove
tho piaintns' case. Judge ssdgwick. In deciding
the case, ssays trat an action Tor aiding CO.
defenaanv 10 commit breach OF contract may
be assumed to lie and that knowledge OF the oonga-
tions OF the parties and fraudulent intent are ma
ierlal to be proved against the Defendants Hc goes
on 70 say "a consideration OF tho issues in this
tion show that the discovery Is needed to aid the
plaintiff prove, not on tho statements OF the CON-
plant, the breach OF plaintids contract, or that
the present defendants contract sugpaned plaintiffs
contract, for these matters II tney exist, be
easily proved without this discovery, but 10 prove
circumstances Of knowledge, motive and intent on
may show that the dciendants' corporation know
ingiy oussed the plaintiff from the benefits they
would have derived from a performance OF
their contract. Perhaps there would be
facts shown relevant 10 the amount OF damage. BY
faction OF the Court Judge the materiality and
necessity OF the discovery soughs, the particular
,Tss OF tns matters he seeks discovery OIL
Arap the rule requires that the TACO Of the peti
ton there should appear =. sass s dha;
ior II Is not enough that perhaps It may be found
there and perhaps not Inc RUE ~ tursner reaures
particular, not general manner A. all
stages Of this proceedi9g It Is supposed that the
party knows what his action or defence Is
aud what testimony ne seeks" Tho Judge
ten recapitulales what tho plaintiff says Il is
sary to show and prove-drst the names OF the
oofcers and managers OF the defendant corporation,
the amount OF stock held aud owned by each, what
relation tney sustained 10 the codciendants and the
several construction contracts Tor building and
eoutppng elevated railway ana 10 show and provo
tSs actions and resolutions relating 10 the making
tanning ara relating thereto which are unknown TO
the petitioners, and Tho allegations relating TO the
same sFrom these allegatisns," he further says,
t clearly appears that tue matters SO generally stated
are not stated evidence IN the Cause In each prop
ositiop matters in cuded which cannot
Tho probability Is that the greater part OF parcu-
lars involved, but not stated are of this Kind; the
other particulars may or may not DO evidence. The
tsslt does characterixs any entry or doc
ument as which II now be said that IL is admis
ms tha. the applicant supposes or believes that If
there an opportunity 10 examine a The docu-
msns or snUw % na
poration iseif, were greatly interested or tuten-
iouay acted in bringing about breach OF the alleged
contract with painun. 10 accomplish this, even.
would involve the dsieDdants being forced exhibit
what II Is probable, hc has right to keep undis.
covered. il is clear that the petition docs not
point 20 the places hero the information exists nor
does n describe the entries, excepting by stating
their supposed effect as evdence rather then their
intrinsic character The description that is given is
consistent with their not beng evidence In the ac-
ton Nor does the petition show any reason for re-
sorting this method OF proof sither expediency
or necepsiiy The nrst PRECISION that the OF
evidence called for can be had aoundanty. OUTSIDE OF
the discovery o the books, and at loast the petition
does nos tho c0ntrary. In 1De. the petition
does not the OF rule Is and ap.
pl,cation TO dismiss II must be granted"