Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-03-25
ESPECIAL rrLreRAM TO THE DISPATCH,


NEW YORK, March 24.-When Judge
Lawrence at the special term of the Su-
preme Court to-day, called the case of the
Metropolitan Exhibition Company against
John NJ Ward, which was the first on the
calendar, Lawyer Duysters announced his
readiness to proceed, although he was the
only one of the lawyers on either side pres
ent John r. Day was called as the first
witness for the plaintiff and was examined
by Mr.. Beaman.
Mr.. Beaman-What expenses have you
incurred in fitting up your present grounds?
Mr.. Day. should say between $4,000
and $4,000.
Mr.. Rowland objected, and the Judge
asked if testimony was material. Mr..
Beaman said he wanted to show how the
business would suffer if the players refused
to keep their engagements, as Ward has
been in the company's employ for about six
years.
MR.. ROWLAND oBsEcTs.
Mr. HowIand-what company?
Mr. Beaman-The Metropolitan Exhibition
Company.
Mr. Howland-I object
Judge Lawrence-Gentlemen, the contracts
read as the New York club.
Mr. Beaman then asked Mr.. Day whether
Ward ever had a contract made out in the name
of the Metropolitan Exhibition Company. The
reply was no; it was always in the name of the
New York club Judge Lawrence said if the
Metropolitan Exhibition Company and the
New York club were the same concern, there
ought to have been some resolution passed
wherein contract was ordered to be made out
in the name of the New York club. The best
evidence on that point would be the minutes of
the corporation. Mr.. Beaman took exceptions
to the exclusion of that testimony. Upon cross
examination by Mr.. Rowland, Mr.. Day said the
Metropolitan Exhibition Company does not
favor any other club but the New York club,
nor never did, excepting the Metropolitan Club.
He did not usually pay Ward his salary. He
was frequently paid by checks, and he could
swear to that for he could refer to the BOOKS
Mr.. Rowland attempted to draw from MI. Day
his opinion of the difference as players between
Glasscock and Ward.
Mr.. DAY COULDN'T DECIDE.
Mr.. Day said that he was unable to state
which was the better player Judge Lawrence
asked the witness if the company had consti-
tation and bylaws. The reply was, Il think
So"
Judge Howland-How much do you pay
Gl-sscock. Objected to.
Nj. Oay-As high as S5.OOO 1 am prepared to
say that that is all have to pay him. will
probably pay his expenses to indianapolis. but
there will be no gratuity at the end of the year.
Farrels salary is about 81 900.
Arthur Bell, Superintendent of the company,
was the next witness. and all the questions
were objected to, the objections sustained and
exception noted. Mr.. Bell said he paid all
salaries generally from the money taken in. If
there was not enough to go around he would
get checks from the Treasurer Mr.. Dillingham;.
Lawyer Duysters was called. He said he or
ganized the company in 1852 as an attorney.
He was director one year, and for the past
two years he has been the secretary. The COM
lany was formed under an old law of lS4S All
the business was transacted under the name of
the company.
Mr.. Rowland did not produce any witnesses,
but asked that the case be dismissed because
the contract of the defendant was made out in
the name of the New York club and not the
Metropolitan Exhibition Company; that it is
not a contract for two years; that it is indef-
mite and lacks mutuality. He handed up to the
Court Judge OBren's decision and the deci-
sion of Judge Thayer, of Philadelphia, In the
Hallman case.
A CLEAE-CUT ARGUMENT.
Mr. Beaman made cleap-cut argument against
Mr. Howland's motion, but before he con-
cluded he was interrupted by Judge Lawrence,
who asked:
what fact appears before me that was not
presented to Judge O'Brien?"
Mr.. Beaman-Not one. Excepting the uues-
tiop of difference between the Metropolitan
Exhibition Company and the New York club.
But / hardly think the case was argued as
carefully before Judge O'Brien as now. The
greatest stress at that time was laid upon the
word reserve" Mr.. Beaman was about refer
ring to a decision when Judge Lawrence again
interrupted him. Judge HOwland then argued
in favor of his motion to dismiss taking Judge
O'Brien's decision as basis. Judge Lawrence
said:
''It is generally conceded that there is moth
ing in this case from what was presented be-
fore. ] really don't see what / have to try
Judge O'Brien's opinion was rendered on the
argument after patient and careful attention.
/ feel most strongly inclined to follow his opin-
ion without some new facts are brought out
Very well 1 viii reserve my decision"