New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-06-18
the LADY, whom they had robbed. They were held In
al 900 each yesterday In tho iorkvio Poce
ram
row SHARP cor CONSENT.
THE STORY OF GEORGE v. POWELL.
HIS SUIT FOR 81 900 DISMISSED by JUDGE FREED

HIS SUIT FOR SIC, 900 DISMISSED by JUDGE FREED
MAN.
Jacob Sharp and J. w. Foshay sat in the Superior
Court room where Justice Freedman presided yester-
day and greatly enjoyed the summary manner in
which Colonel Albert Stickney. Mr. sharp's counsel,
disposed of claim Tor 10000 with interest costs
and disbursements made against his client by George
" Powell. M Powell in his complaint alleged that
Mr. Sharp bad promised him 100 shares of the stock
of the Broadway Surface Railroad if he would
solicit and, il possible, procure the consent of half
the of PROF erty in front of" the City Hall
Park or, failing in that Prevent IT possible, any of
the ri, al companies from procuring snch consent for
such rival companies or any or either Of them
The answer was denial that any agreement had
been made and an allegation that the plaintiff WAS
semployed do what he did by virtue of his employ
ment by the Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad
Company" that he paid in full by that com
vany and on information and belief that what he did
was done so carclesssly and incfcienty that they
OF little value and he had been paid more than
they were worth TIE plaintiff testified that on MAY
z. 1854 Mr. Foshay solicited his services to obtain
consents for the construction of the Broadway Surface
Railroad. lie entered upon the work and during May
saw Mr. Sharp about 1t. On May % the canvassers
had failed to obtain the consent Of owners of
majority of property on Broadway from Fourteenth
It, to the Battery having solicited everybody. 1t
necessary to Get seven Of the fourteen owners of
property opposite the City Hall Park in order pre-
vent the Broadway CABLE Railway Company from
getting majority N vauc OF the propcrtyowners on
Broadway. On that day the witness told Mr.. Sharp
that only three owners opposite the park had agreed
not to consent for the rival company and Mr. Sharp
said, " You give them 100 shares of stock apiece"
The witness asked what he to have and Mr..
Sharp replied "That's all right. Won shall have 100
shares extra services" The witness promised the
Shoe and Leather Bank fifty shares of stock and
worked tie entire territory by offering stock in order
to keep the other company from getting control lie
made all sorts of propositions and offered to sell stock
in eases at 30 cents on the dollar The witness
reported to the defendant often He had never been
able to get the fifty shares promised for the Shoe and
Leather Bank. He obtained only this consent
lie was bound to prevent the property from
signing for The other road and he kept Offering stock
20 snt them. The result that neither party
got majority of consents OF propcrtvOwners opposite
tine park. He asked Mr. sharp tor the stock be had
promised and he SAID il had not been issued yet
Afterward he said the stock to be paid to the Shoe
and Leather Bank only In case n majority of the
property owners sienet. The witness replied 70 this
/" Mr. Sharp that isn't so and you're compromising
me greatly. On the strength of your representations
| have ofe red the stock"
issued. When it's issued we'll make 1t all right
The witness said he had been waiting ever since and
IL had not been made all right"
On cross-examnation the witness acknowledged his
signature to receipts given TO tine Broadway and
Seventh Avenue Railroad Company for money laid
him for services in behalf of the Broadway Surface
Railroad Con pany. He said that he had obtained one
consent to the building of the road of the latter and
had used arguments and Influence to prevent other
senting to the construction Of the rival road -Four
propertyowners had withheld their consent from the
latter
Colonel stickney read affidavit by the plaintiff
which had presented to the General Term OF the
Supreme Court in the application Tor commission in
which he declared that he employed by the
Broadway Surface Railroad Company. He moved to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that no perform
ancc of the specific contract had been show and that
the plaintiff Ind worked in direct hostility what the
company employed hin TO do. J. X Jessup for the
pa ntiff opposed the motion.
Justice Freedman granted the motion. Mcssrs.
Sharr and Foshoy who had expected TO be called
Witnesses cked relieved and lett the courtroom
smiling.