New-York tribune., 1879-01-28
THE VANDERBILT CONTESTS.
THE SUITFOR A MILLION.
DELAY IN THE SUIT OF CORNELIUS j. AGAINST
WILLIAM II. .yANDEEBILr.

THE SUIT.FOR MILLION.
DELAY IN TIE SUIT OF CORNELIUS j. AGAINST
WILLIAM II. yANDERBlLr.
Scott Lord and Ethan Allen were present
Yesterday before Judge LandOn in the Supreme Court
Circuit TO answer ready " i'll the case OF Corhelus
j. Vanderbilt against William ii. vanderbilt, which
had been put nearly at the head OF the day caehda'
The counsel in two cases which had been for some days
on the calendar protested and after some consdera
ton Judge Landon decided that as they were the earlier
cases on the day calendar they must be heard first
According TO the counsel tho second Of these cases will
occupy all this week aud the first not ended yes
terday.
Mr. Lord stated to Judge LHndon that Judge Davis
hrd granted stay in this case pending motion Tor
spccial or struck jury lie had at fist thought thls
| irregular as in his Judgment the case did not come
within the statute; aud at any rate the motion should
| be made at Circuit. lie had been inclined to
| treat IL as a nuity, but on fcncctlOh, nc
| had concluded take another course ana ask
| an order rcturnahle at once. at one hours or one
DAYS notice. why the order should not be vacated Ihe
Judge suggested convenient this afternoon al
halfpast 3 o'clock. Before this Scott Lord aud Ethan
Allen had applied, ex parte, TO Judge Davis to Vacate
his order and Judge Davis handed down, later IN tue
day. an opinion Of which the following IA the substance
After deciding III OF AL the facts, that the defend
ants arc guilty of undue neglect i'll not making TINS
| motion earlier, he says:
Tho nucstjon whether, under all its circumstances,
mis- Il n case III which special jury ought 10 he d.
rcctcd properly belongs 10 The court III Whlc tne mo-
nv the argument Of counsel by authority presented
II is enough however to dispose OF TINS aplcaton ihat
| can see that the motion Is maue hpGh reason
aha grounds and not plainly in bad faith. am salts
fed that there reasonable grounds FOR asking f0T
| gruci Jury. Tho II one involving Tl,OUO,OOO.
Thgt fact alone would not be sufficient ground, but the
action is scompcated with other controversies nvoiNihg
vastly larger and questions oI lar greater
| nm II appears that the controversies pending nave
h' iorGpIy The subject o discussions newspapers
| "a il, tins 1 :
nose that prciudces exist rendern" dhcut 10 secure
an unbiased jury from the ordinary panels. Under
such circumstances 1t is not unreasonable think, TO
allow an opportunity 10 either party 10 pleschtt0 tne
Court The es ion whether the case be not one proper
T6c rsc6t Crcuit is in It's last week. It's iurymen
are exhausted from long service and 1t said the r1
Of tins case will occupy weeks. IL is not at all
likely that it can be compressed within the few remain
ing DAYS Of the Circuit 1t Is not apparent thereo.,
that either party Will suffer II the motion lie not gIahtu
by having the lett as II then VIII be at or near ne
head of Inc calendar Of Circuit beginning IN
February, with fresh jury unwearlcd win weeks Ol
attendance, ! see no reason why tue Order Oh sidS
should vacated and must therefore deny the appca-
| ton
PETITION OF TIE YOUNGER BROTHER.
| ARGUMENTS on TUE MOTION 10 HAVE TIE ExEC-
| IT0Es OF THE COMMODORE'S WILL REMOVED.
The hearing on the petition OF Cornelius j.
Vanderbilt to have the executors OF the Will OF Com
modorc Vanderbilt removed was had before Surrogate
Calvin yesterday. The petition, which has already
been published TIE TRIBt ~, and which alleges that
| II.
reckless spcculations and expenditures, was read BY
Mr. Lord
Mr.. Clinton made two preliminary objections The
first was that the provisions Of the statute under which
the petition was made had no application to executors
after objections the viii had been fled Before let
tiers testamentary granted by the Surrogate the
Court had no control over the executors. and when
once objections we're filed, MI Clinton claimed, the
l4tons Of the Court and executors thrown back
into exactly the Same position that they occupied
before letters t"stanentdry were granted AGAIN
oynccding the statements Of the petition To be tIue'
there were facts calling upon the Court 10 do any
thing else than 10 dismiss In supporting this point MI
! clinton took up each allegation in the petition.
suppose he Is spccuatmR Mr.. Chhton SAID oil VIII
| lam H. Vanderbilt. " 1t Is with his own money. Any
way don't see how this Court can interfere III wal
-t rpeculatIOns. Even If he does owe 81 100000 IT
doe.u't matter unless you show that the liabilities eX
ccrd the assets, which l. not a|crfed Ihefe no ree
yaucy the allegation that the proponent has spent
Witnesses the contestant, except to show that the
petitioner has introduced witnesses that may De bought.
grandchildren would not 1--we to the end Oi the test-
mony that would be taken. whenever they make
charges that he met they will find their answer
enough but IL IS impossible to answer such riyo-
Mr. lord, in answer, said that IL under the statute
the petitioner could not come INTO court in tins
Tee not opposcd to the probate Of the will
could prevent, take any steps against waste Of the
cared thai among the rowcrs OF an executor is the
! power TO waste the estate such result was never
contemplated by the statute. Letters tcstameEtary
have been granted To the executors aud they there
afrc responsible 10 the Court Tor the they make of
the trust funds II an executor has been guilty OF the
acts we allcge OF William If. Vanderbilt as protection
to the the estate shonld he taken out Of his
hands. II trustee has engaged III vast speculatons
when involve the whole estate, II be would cheat
stockholders ont OF their property, o isn't the proper
man 10 hold trust funds his hands. William II. Van
derbt isn't Commodore Vanderbilt lie isn't the man
up the frauds of years for very long time and
if been guilty OF these acts he should be removed
from the cNcCutOrshlp"
| Mr. Choatr in answer, called the attention OF the
Court 10 the that the estate solvent and there
was no apparent danger OF the petitioner losing his
500 900 which belonged To him under the Will. Dec
sion upOn The objections was Reserved