New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-08-20
STILL ARGUING OVER PONDS.
THE CONTROLLER SECURES AN ADJ
JOuRNMENT IN TIE INJUNCTION
EEDINGS-TERMILYE &
co. REPI'

LITIGATION over the city bond issue resumed
yesterday in tho Supreme Court before Justice
Cohen. where the application Of James a. Trow-
bridge for an Injunction restraining the Controller
from delivering any Of the bonds to the Produce
Exchange Trust Company. 10 anybody except
Vermye & Co. came UP for argument. Assistant
Corporation Counsel Connolly who represented
Controller Coer. applied for an adjournment until
Tuesday next the ground that he had only been
served with the order TO show cause on Thursday
afternoon and was not IN position TO argue the
motion Immediately. Ex-Judsc Browne w. G. De
witt and Mr.. Hughes. on behalf Of the Produce FIX
change Trust Company. opposed any adjournment.
ard oontcrded that as M Connolly had been able
TO argue practically the same questions before
Justice Beekrnan n the application for n manda-
mus made before him by Vermilye & Co on
Wednesday, he should 10 able argue the main
question without further preparation.
Mr. Connoly said he could possibly do so
There were he said. other interests besides those
Of the STUMBLING bondholders. The citys interest
was at stake. and he desired to argue the motion
as we'll as submit brief to the Court
Justice Cohen asked Mr.. Connolly II he could not
submit brief on the case by Tuesday next Mr.
Connolly seld he could hut he wished argue the
motion and he demanded the adjournment ms a
marer 81 right
Mr. Wickersham Of Strong & Cadwalndcr. for
Ncrmye & CO. said he dl not oppose the motion
for a postporcment. He was. he said ready To 60
vi AZ il'$'rI III inc discussion between couNScl
and the Court the action Of the Produce FIX
change Trust Company I'm depos!tng $1,000 with
the Controller before the motion for the mandamus
could be argued and receiving form of receipt
emitting the company to bonds TO that amount.
was severely condemned by Mr.. Wickersham.
Justice Cohen finally said he would grant the ad-
journnont asked for by Mr.. Connoiy.
Nudge Browne and his associates asked that
the adjournment 10 made subject a stipulation
by Vermilye 6 Co and the other parties inter
ested with them that should Justice Bcekman issue
the maniamus asked for # should he acted
upon until Justice Cohen had decided the motion
now brought before him. Mr. Wickershnm said
he could make no stipulation. hut would submit, to
any direction made by the Court
Justice Cohen said II not in his power 10
make any stipulation hut ne would suggest that
should Justice Beekman issue the writ OF manda-
mus applied for. action should be taken upon
IT until he had disposed Of the present motion. All
the lawyers engaged in the case agreed 10 this and
the proceedings terminated
In an open letter to Controller Coler about tho
bond issue. William \. Read. OF Vermllye & Co
has made the following statements:
deny that was asked TO make an unconditiona!
bid Tn" question was not discussed between us
You pretended that YOU desired 10 do everything
you could to make the bonds satisfactory ~ us. and
that you wanted TO know how II could be done
When suggested the employment OF outside coun-
SCI. you met ~ my requcs'. an eminent counsel At
our Office and discussed the question with him He
10 YOU that he would BE- glad 20 render his
WEES. Tree 81 charge. IN order To get the city
or this bond muddle. II Was then PROPOSED that
possibly would be better 10 get the Appellate ~
vision 10 pass upon tho matter once. Inv advance
of the issue. This found to be- impracticable
because the court WIS not sitting md YOU aid not
employ or OFFER 10 employ the services ~ any cOun-
sci TO civ" YOU an outside opinion. As aftorwari
learned. however you 3d.! have In your possession
~ IN" time a favorable opinion from another couu-
s.i-thau whom stands higher ON questions
q municipal las and you stated 10 counsel
after the bids were opened that Won l11 taken the
opportunity. fomc lime prior 10 advertising for
proposals. 10 Informally prccur" the approval -
the validity ~ The issue hy three 81 'he Judges II
the Aupe late Division. What your object IN
conce9ling this Information from mo. when pre-
tending 10 ha desirous to have my firm bid FOR the
bonds you alone know.
y arinc hy accident from outside sources. before
tn" bids wer" opened. that such an opinion IN
your possession although IA not know uniu You
stated n to counsel af'frwari fha' ~ hai been
passed uporYf1fornally by the Judges. inter some
CONSIDERABLY bur firm and our associates deter
mined ipFs ltkH the bonds and IN making our bid
we used a fhfm which T. usual with bond bidders
IN outside cities ana with which YOU are entirely
familiar. md which. tho Corporation Counsel
has advised MI merely emphasizes The condition
which tie law Iinpics rom tho oNer
Rcfarrlng.ta statement by tho Controller tina;
his firm IA NJ subscribed for any OF the bonds.
Mr.. Read also wrote
In reply the president Of one OF tho most promi-
noni savings banks IN the greater city has made 20
a rclreseu tailye - my firm the following state
ment i have Interest IN ~" New YORK city
lonn 81 $4,000 taken through W = 'ol"r q Co.
with the understanding that should receive the