New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-03-06

\, rp,p s1r,r pEroRE JuDGE PRATT.

AN ERIE SUIT BEFORE JUDGE fhAll.
MOTION 10 CHANGE THE VENUE IN TIVE hNN'Ln'
AcTION-CuAEGEs ~ THE CoMPLAiNI-s""''
,xo ,ssrpT1oys OF CONSPIRACY AND FRAUD
The suit of Dewitt C. Langley, bond ana
,oo,ao,1er against the Erie Railway Company; hug
7 Jewett individually, and as receiver; s"h'u'' ., w.
p,rlow Jay Gould. and the Farmers Loan ana ii""
Cnnnapy of Sew York, before Judge ffa''' Il
Rrooklyn yesterday, a motion made ny the "S'''o
.,ts Rarow and the Erie Railway Company TO ch'"b0
,bc venue from Orange County 90 New-fOrS county
Tho COMPLAINT alleges that, a few months l''Vi
March 1872 Mir. Barlow entered into eohSpuao' VIZ
Eischoashon & Goldsohmdt and James Moie"'S' ~
London and others secure control OF the la'""3 -
hat 70 carry out this purpose MI hchei! ''"" 4,
800 600 10 Mr. Barlow. TO be used in induo'"k '"
IN sign so that persons under The hue''
~ +ho ALLEGED cousplrat0rs could bUsut in inc" PHo'
1orr, mart of this 500 900, il is Claimed was i" -
Mr. Harlow 70 certain directors ana a oit'o" u " We"
retained by Mr. Barlow, or paid to the Ia" rui ~ ".'
he was n member. The new directors are aucSeu ~
have been Mr.. Barlow's tools In March, lS'Z' IhoH
,cted Holm Dix 10 the presidency THIS position ne
,,aned only four months, receiving for his services
Sl5OCO although the complaint says he was only
orre head and performed scarcely practical duties
In Juv q that year. Peter H. Watson who Is alleged to
have been under Mr. Barows influence, was made pres
ANT When Jaw Could ceased 70 he president in March,
1877 II asserted that no was Indebted TO the company
over so 600 600 and "a further alleged that con
sriracy formed between McssTs Could B6rlOw ana
Watson 10 defraud the company Of THIS sum by having
Nj CDul pay il IN worthless nearly worthless STOCKS
secnritles and properly. At the time however II was
inck OF the company was thereby increased in value.
By TINS means the alleged conspirators rcaped large
further alleged that in july 1874 Mr. Jewet
- elected mr., ident through the inlutp Of Mr.. Bar
low and t.at then the company was and had been Tor
ior time u>olveui and unable from It's earnings To
met lis expenses. Upon Information and belief Tire
,1l sniff SlY =
maj receiver would DC appontef who would cal them
10 account for the moneys which they are alleged 70
NV frluiulently obtained cOu7prcd with Attorney
General Pratt and with Mr. Jcvett 10 have JeWtt ap-
wr harlow paid - coo 20 Mr.. Pratrs law partner TO
induce him to move Tor M Jewetts appointment. and
cm made iy client Of Mr. Pratt whereby the latter
was largely benefited In pursuance OF ths anese1
conspiracy, IT charged, M Jewett was appointed re
ceyer on MAY 20. 1870. The plaintiff believes that he
has neglected and refused 70 SCI 3SlaG the alc6E" c%
duient settlement with Mr. Gonld am mas c9HuSINr$
and fraudu emily settled an action against M GOtiu,
and refused 10 mold hr. Barlow responsive lOF INC
wrongful acts set forth IL the complaint.
Es at OF he alleged conspiracy. it is charged that
Mr. Barlow caused contract to be made WIN Hscnos
compauy's bonds at commission Of 2l2 per cent ne
sides brokerage OF Il per cent. although contract
existed with hFm II London brokers 10 peIpgI We
for L Per cent THIS was 70 repay Bi;chonsiem
This alleged fraudulent contract was carried ou aud
he rn, IT is stated, holds from the proceeds Of
influence has prevented any action 10 recover this mo
new ana has insisted that IL belongs To The hrm Tie
The firm from all obligations. An cxOrbtant salary is
said TO have paid to Mr. Jcwett president as part
os scheme OF hessIs Jewctt and Barlow 10 appropriate
uulawfully money belonging 10 the company MI Bar
low also alleged 10 have gained an Interest III certain
claims OF the Atlantic and Great Western Company,
against the Enc. winch he caused to be- REQ ened after
settlement. In IC5cttement IL IS asserted 100000
ives PAID 10 the Atlantic and Great Western, aud
$4,000 10 one Bnlkc.
Although thc gross earning, Of the company for years
prior 10 February H. 1878. did not equal by many MI
ion. its expenses and losses, nevertheless tie
directors passed a resolution dividend of 3l9
cent On
stock announcing To over 81 100000 when ulViOendS
were paid. The paintif says that they were paid from
me sae 81 convertible hcnOs, and not Out OF he proper
funds. Mr. Barlow. it j. CHARGED. shared IN the divt
dcnds ana cospIcI to have the resolution passed for
speculative purposes; ana u was announced mat tie
dividends were paid from the earnings of tie company
Another charge is that Mr.. Barlow PAID to john A C.
GRAY director and to Other persons S330OOQ Tor he
purchase Of 5000 shares OF the Buffalo, Ncw-Nork ana
Ere Railroad Company stock, the market Val'e OF
which dd not exceed $4,000, and that the S3OO,OOO
A (. lie
The plaintiff makes tuT.her allegations, ana utlhahus
Judgment tHat the settlement with Ar GOadDe set aside
and hat ne be directed pay e. 10 special recover 70
be appointed this action, tne money atu property NJ
legged De due by him 10 tho cOmpauy thar Mt Barlow
he required and pay over TO said receiver all
MONEYS aud properly and alIenJted from the cOui
aud by MS alleged misconduct aud fraudulent practices
officer Of the company; ana All moneys ana proper
d. c0nuany by reason thereof and interest thereon
and that an accounting he had therefor: that Mr. Jcwcrt
OOO and that She Farmers Loan ana Trust company be
onioinrd and restrained from Hing under foreclosure
and that SAID decree be opened ana the mort age set
aside declared VOID aud cancelled or record; that
special receiver of the Erie Railway Company be ap-
pointed FOR the purpose named, ana tLat Tie pialnuH
have such other relief as may be Just
The Erie Company alone has put IN an answer. IT ad
mts tie salaries of the officers as named in the complaint
and that Mr. Gould was indebted N a sum which was
On the motion change the place OF trial, Judge Pratt
reserved his decision