Year: 1868




On the Sd day of March, on the application
of the Attorney General of the State of New
York, Judge Barnard, Of the Supreme Court,
granted an injunction against the Erie Railway
Company and its directors, enjoining and
restraining them from converting any bonds OF
the company or other securities into stock, or
from issuing any additional stock whatsoever,
and especially enjoining and restraining Daniel
Drew from selling or in any way disposing Of
any Erie Railway stock or certificates of stock
that might be or come into his possession until
he shall have restored to the company certain
shares obtained by him as security for loans or
in exchange for stock Of other roads. The
application of the Attorney General of the
State was based upon the complaint and affida-
Wit of Frank Work, one of the directors of the
Erie Railway, setting forth alleged transactions
prejudicial to the rights and interests Of the
stockholders of that company.


1t appears that the defendants in these pro-
ceedings have hunted up another Justice of the
Supreme Court in the rural districts-probably
somewhere on the line Of the Erie Railway
who has been prevailed upon to issue an order
which conflicts with and seeks to nullify Judge
Barnard's injunction, and to deprive the stock
holders of the benefit of the protection sought
to be extended to them by the Attorney Gen.
eral of the State. This country Judge steps in
and issues counter injunction against the
complaining director, Work, the object being,
as we have said, to embarrass the pending pro-
ceedings and to interfere in a remarkable and
apparently unwarrantable manner in the case
already before the Supreme Court. While there
may be legal warrant for the course pursued
by the defendants in this matter and for the
action of their judicial friend from the rural
districts, it is nevertheless most singular pro-
ceeding, and one which, however reconcilable
with Wall street ethics, appears to be in con-
flict with all our preconceived ideas of pro
fessional courtesy and public justice.


The case comes up again to-day before
Judge Barnard, and he will no doubt properly
rebuke the extraordinary and apparently un-
justifable intermeddling with the case on the
part of Justice of the Supreme Court outside
this judicial district, and reaffirm his former
decision, vacating the order subsequently OBJ
tanned. Meantime, on the complaint of Richard
Schel, Judge Barnard yesterday granted an
Injunction to restrain the directors of the Erie
Railway from holding any meeting for the
transaction of business so long as Frank Work
is prohibited from acting as director of the
said company, such prohibition being por-
ton of the order of the country Judge. There,
are other features of the case of interest to the
stockholders, to which it is unnecessary to
allude The whole affair presents a striking
illustration of the manner in which the business
of railroad stock speculation is carried on, and
the fullest exposure of all the facts in the case
is desirable. For some years the Erie Rail-
way has been in the hands of jobbers and
spectators, and the bona tide stockholders
have been made the victims of the tricks Of
the manipulators on Wall street. The people
would now like to know something about tho
management of the company, and as the money
of the State has been invested in the road the
desire is not unreasonable. 1t is to be hoped
that Judge Barnard and the Attorney General
will persevere in their efforts to protect the
stockholders, and will not be driven from
the contest by sharp lawyers or intermeddling
Judges.