New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-03-26
EVILS OF THE REFEREE SYSTEM.


A TEST CASE, IN WHICH 1T is INTENDED TO EAfooi'
THE ALLEGED ABUSES or FORECLOSURE sALEs.
A motion was made yesterday III the supreme
Court. before Judge Daniels, by John McOurK'
counsel for A. J. Dam, which aims TO determine the
legality of the present system of sales under lore
closure as conducted IN the Real Estate Exchange
Mr.. McGurk's motion is TO set aside sale OF prop
erty which was made about ten days ago III the tx
change, No. III Broadway, by Richard V. Harhe'''
auctioneer. and by order of +. Ellery Anderson,
referee The property was owned by A. Da'n'
lessee of the Aston House. and the foreclosure was
made on account of Mr.. Dams failure to pay the
S. 900 mortgage 1t consisted OF house ana several
lots in the Twenty-third Ward. 1t is alleged that
the sale was not advertised except in The Req'ster
ard nublc attention was not called to it by the
referee for the benefit of the of the property
The affidavit alleges that some days before the
nroposed sale Mr.. McGurk. in behalf Of Mr..
Dam. served upon the referee written request
that he should state to those present the day of
sale the nature and condition OF the improvements
which Mr.. Dam had made, and which had cost nm
81 500; that he should sell the lots separately that
he should sell them himself without the aid Of an
auctioneer, and should not charge auctloneers lees
as expenses AGAINST the property that he Should az
low thirty days time to examine the title. with
these demands. Mr. McGurk alleges, Mr. Anderson
refused to comply except in the matter of the thirty
DAYS time aud the selling III separate parcels. lie
affidavit declares that ME- Anderson put the ulIltI
into the hands of Richard V. llanctt. auctionecr,
and that on the day of sale Mr.. Dam, MI McGurk ana
the referee attended with one or two other persons
that then Sir. Dam and ms attorney both requested
the referee to inform those present and especially
one person, who desired to get information on tue
subject, with probable ntent.0 OF purchasing,
what improvements had been added 10 tie property
by Mr. Dam. The affidavit declares that the referee
refused to furnish the information for the pur-
pose of brneiitting the owner; that col
fusion existed between the referee and tie
auctioneer, as the afiant has reason 10 believe has
existed between the referees and auctloncers IN
hundreds of other cases in which the aGctioneers
share with the referees IN their fees; that MI
DAMS interests were jeOpardzrd, as persons would
rot bid uDon property which they knew nothing
about, and that the property was bought III merely
to protect the bond.
The counsel alleges that the charge against the
property of $15 GuctOnees fees on each lot sofa rs
unlawful that the expenses If the sales should be
paid out OF the referees fees, the auctl0neer -
not a court officer Mr.. McGurk asked the Court to
grant an order TO show cause why the sale should
not be set aside. Judge Daniels granted the motion,
ordering the return TO be made on April !.
Mr. McGurk when called upon by IEIBUNE
reporter said that he did not like to anticipate
what he should say in court when the case came
M for argument but this was illustration of one
of the worst phases Of the existing referee system
In cases of foreclosure the action was entirely III the
interest Of the wealthy plaintiffs; property was not
advertised properly and was not described II was
sold hurrIedly In a room where, at the same h0ur,
scores oC other sales are conducted regular agree
mcns existed bet ween the auctOneerS and referees,
the latter receiving sometimes half and frequently
three-fourths of the fee. which Mr.. McGurk con-
sidcred Illegal. lie said he intended TO make this
fest case.