New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-14

the necessary eaupment upon certificate authorized
by judge at Albany The purchase was sU0n
OF the road aud It decided that about $1,000 was
h ssd the TO @ to Sorrow sooo making
If ,s AGAINST certificates ss pr''GT na told the receiver
extent of So the dollar but that II he could eet
tu2nn 1S me r1 nv money with interest think cera
Gates will be worth 100 cents on the dollar" IT,,
In answer to questions Mr.. Crane said: Ny object
in holding the certificates that the bondholders
get Of the road the may De on
through which it runs 1 purchased these bonds last
year the Legislature passed an act permitting the
e clear Set Steal pG snG the court. do not
sns on afs se road 81 and so II IN Europe Keeping
100000 of the money for their own use thnk the
would not drink any while receiver that Is his worst
falling. had him hum up what land claims were IN,
pad and settle them began to work with H. A. dllen
under feeling OF disrust, but there is now good I'M
ss ToaS in y I bonds on the for
which paid from Is to % cents on the dollar j. W.
president of another road in which was director and
was frequently in my office II was a51T
T ps a6S M dden receiver sSa
Mr.. saokett had less than $4,000 in bonds think ne
S35O,0OU bonds, but opposed his coming into the
suit. hold bonds in behan Of T. W. Pierce George
Bonner Mr.. Knox and Others"
w c. Van Alstine, clerk 10 Receiver Van Nalken-
burgh testified as 10 the amount OF cernhcates ISSUED
the Court lac SAID, dd not contain correct statement
Of the receivers issue of certificates.
tiled that he engaged in certain proceedings
against the Erie Railroad to recover taxee ne added
THE matter cane up before Judge Westbrook In Sep
TENDER. 1881: After hearing argument he sald
it would be necessary TO refer the mat,
to agree upon referee Mr.. Lyon, counsel for the rail
road, suggested L. b. WesbFook son OF JUDGE west
names. We reached agreement but returned TO the
Judge Mr. Lyon stated that had reached no agree
ne objection,
appointed his son as reteree; A. -. .,.,o.
Green city, who counsel for the Manhattan
Company IN the sulis brought against II by tne NeN
York and the Metropolitan elevated Railway COnpanies
to secure the OF their properly testified that Gen
eral SwGyne mistaken when he said that the Man
haitian was not attempting defend the suits He said
that his firm had knowledge at the time
the letters which passed between Judge Nestnrook
aud the receivers. such letters unusual IN New
York Courts but the United states Courts and III tie
Chaucery Courts OF NewJersey and III England II would
not be unusual Tor the Judge 10 consult WIN the re-
To Mr. etson the witness said that he had never be-
fore personally known OF such letters passing between
Court aud receivers, ana that he somewhat sur
prsed when he the letters published Inc letters
might have been communicated 10 all the COunsei LOT
the receiver. He had not known OF case where re-
applied for instructions 10 Court without CIV
Ing notice 10 all the parties 10 the case ne tnous tue
letters inGiscreet he purpose OF the Judge was evl
IDENTIFY to preserve tie manhattan Railroad property
The action people by the Attorney General vas 10
dissolve It, The Judges letters implied purpose to de
feat the Attorney Generals action. The witness dld not
know OF any right OF Judge TO Indicate MS pTpose 20
defeat action brought by the people, Dut thought
right for the Judge 10 protect tnc properly.
MIR StotsOn-Was ii udIcia for the Court To solicit and
receive vi stern Uuio ks from person interested
litigation before himi
MIR McCoos-rhat il question OF taste. II the franks
were 10 be used the II NIL ht be ali right.
Mr. Steison-but II been shown that fourteen telc
graus were ami twelve OF them were sent called
What do you think Of IL under sucn circumstances
Mr.. McCook-I think the Judge was economical Oh the
stamps.
Mr. -tetsOn-Do you consider that ii was judicial for
Judge TO ax hs signature TO an order subject 10 the up
proVal Of the Attorney General
Mr. McCook-It might he TO save time.
The witness questioned at length as to his opin-
ion Of the letters written by Judge MesbrOok ana the
course pursued, but he declined TO commit himself
specifically any Iurther than that believed the JUDGES
action III some particulars indlscreet
f. L. WestDroOk, of Kingston, testlhed as 10 his con-
pecton with the Marvin Sackett against the Leb
anon Springs Railway Company. he was employed as
counsel BY John BlOCdgOOd and paid F120. There
was an agree ment with Mr. Bunnel, the counsel for
other bOndhOlders he said that the witness should he
designated the attorney whom papers were 10 DC
served. lie received draft or an order from MI
Bunnel which contained such des gnation.
The committee viii meet again O-MorroW, at the same
place.