New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-02-12
A LAWYER IN HOT WATER.
JUDGE INGRAHAM'S PLAIN WORDS.
DISCUSSING ALLEGED STATEMENTS by
REFEREE-FACTs ABOUT A MOTION.

DISCUSSING ALLttrED SIA4ENti'-'A'
REFEREE-FACTs ABOUT NOTION
James NJ. Lyddy, the lawyer who has had some
trouble over the case OF Susan NJ Layth as'."9O
Thomas Cunningham sons a Co.. has got hiIhsen M
cxccedncly hot water. Judge lngraham' III 'iI0
hunreme Court Yesterday handed down the folio"
ing opinion upon motion which was haue poio.'
him 10 vacate an order of reference OF the case HUI
toned 49,
Every statement made in the moqng pape .rsrc 80
a ground for this motion Is denied by tilc rCt0' 40
IL 71""r,nter Mr. I%rAcr the attorney Tor the ue
endant and Mr.. Dill, the defendants counsel r.
by lie record OF the proceedings before uIt ,hn
am satisfied that there was no demand Dy NY
referee iOr $40 all honr, taJ me referee ,,c~ Tor
that lie refused to proceed WIN t ne sttaement by
counsel Tor defendant that he would pay inc
see that the referee was pau any Soa With the
plaintiff bases tine motion 10 remove uic iUo,iop i
absolutely false, and for that reason t nGainris At
denied with SO costs to be paid by plalhuH AZ
There another fact in connection is "l oer to
show cause obtained from Mr. Ju''u1 te noon
the evening OF January -, az ~ apta1ney had
lust missed the Chambers Judge me , gluGr aaT
originally prepared was rcturrabe on tte pam Served
ION or about January 80 1891 Mr. justice ,,, AL
dcws inserted in the blank p; space yd loT February
and Inserted January, and changed the e. pG GrI0e
providing for the service OF the 1igcr ~ ,nsnrtine
The eth" and signed his name. ihe ,I " niclnrL
not served until the following DAY aler i'm
when copy of the order, written thiou5no". -, ~
Npewriling and being an exact copy Oh SHe " :,
as signed by Justice andrews, Fe5ruary
, was served on the referee ard another CotS -. "
this order subsequently served upon nrG1nrad Of
counsel but the original order was not plVuu.vyu "
exhibited to either the referee or the deiehuaVS al
1t the reference on that day the palItlu - repro
senird Ly another counsel who stated u the r5i.p
that an order had been obtained staying PrOccoiii ,
and requesting adjournment ioT "ecn NJ "n,g
tne motion to bc decided such an UJOuriil'V ~
would he proper If the order to snow aus %IS
urnabe February >, but not II IL wa I tespdmt
on the following day. Upon counsel for deiehd iS
calling upon Justice andrews WIN tSlEs'' stated
that the order which he had signed was ret it
January -. Notice was gwen To the piln''n n.' a.
tn,unv mat the order as signed was not Cor.
cow Of The order granted. IN repL 20 that, Jane
NJ Lyddy one o: the counsel for plahuh WHY H. u"
defendants counsel letter In Mhch nc S'1Siy tb|
three copies Of the order to show cause WIN t ti
motion papers, were made the evening ue"'c' 80, ~"
that the Judge, in signing the 0fdc male IL iro
aII. the 4gtn inst, instead OF February = a. TX
order, were drawn, and me copies "cte o' a. an m
before service. That statement was iae, d. al nov
.nc,tlon viii show that the original order 10 snow
cr,,,c was not drawn returnabe February - ana t,i
the coplc, served were not made nhul Mter 'H y
''S,,u,i ,ricr to show cause mad been signed ny
'In,Iirc Andrews The order to show cause As made
by Justice Andrews, including his modhcatlohn, MIL
~. .sl exception Of the day liked for inc hearlhs
~ th motion we're correctly copied, and the name
% w., ~. ~l.r On the argument Of the motion, coun-
rl for plaintiff stated that the mistake III me orHer
VA, a mistake of his clerk in copying the ofugI,
II seems impossible, however, that euch Hn'ia
rould have honestly occurred. A. before stated II Is
apparent that the copies were made after me ON
",s .i,ned by the Justice and the change OF ne
return dav I'm the copies must have been lhtnuIhdi
and the Whole conduct Of the plnntII's cpui.7ci I'D
r.,I.ing 10 show the original -,dcr 10 show ctliNe
vLru f was served and In ashng for dJ3urhlhen'
for week. Instead of the next DAY III L.inE mat -
bit the motion the calendar untl Ms pFdct'G ti
been det"cted and ~, false statements IN Ms Ettcr
10 the defendant, counsel as TO the way III winch
he ALLEGED mistake occurred satisfies me tndJ IL VIZ
mo- m stake but a deliberate attempt 10 serve an
order that had never been STauied Tor the puI ps
&c an ADVANTAGE. or u prevent llc t'ih
I'm view Il these facts. deem it my duty 20
eord +hp matter to the General Term, for them 10
t3i.e such action a they may deem proper anu l"
Ind the aidaylts to the D.,trlctAttorhcy