Year: 1874


70 pe neard, either before Your Honor or the rer
cree. think there will then be suff1cient time 70
Determine whether or not the matter should be
may oe entirely disposed Of by Your Honor upon
That the answer we We s have served IN the . case
disposed oil large portion Of the Issues.
For instance, we aege 1ve or six distinct
occasions and means BY which we say the Erie
by issuing o mortgage OF 10000 900 by the crea-
zion OF convertible bonds contrary TO law, which
snsy covered % ey she eSs Sas p
Ialo, New York and Erie Railway Company; oy
the purchase OF $1,000. 600 worth OF coal lands IN
the state or Pennsylvania and BY the declaration
OF certain dividends. Now. SIR, the answer In
this cause distinctly admits the purchase OF the
coal lands and Justlnes 1t, 50 that there is very
admits the purchase OF Buffalo, New York and
Erie stock. and ustides that and defends y, say.
answer admits the declaration OF dividends upon
the advice OF counsel and the only question which
were justified by the financial CONDITION OF the
company. Tnen, with reference to the $40, 600 900
aege sSat the articles Of or association pronibited
the Erie Company rom making any mortgage ex.
cept where notice had been given in the pubic
cedlng the annual election. Now We have had
thas question up before the Attorney General OF
pretencs OF the publication OF any such notices.
on the contrary. the answer, while containing .
90
That the Erie Railway Company was not
restricted as suggested In the complaint which
allegation understand to relate to the charge IN
the complaint that they were restricted IN the
matter OF making the mortgage aforesaid. SO
their allegation In the answer Is In avoidance OF
the charge and does not consist OF the dental OF
the facts upon which " Is predlcated. mention
those things iOr the purpose Of showing that II we
go to referee now IN this stage OF the proceed
ings We shall be without knowledge OF the issues
before the referee and We ought al least to know
whioh OF the facts are to be denied, and they
ought to be denied on oath so as TO provide those
issues and bring them down to as narrow CON-
pass as possible.


Mr.. Macfarland-The question is not what snail
be done for or against the Erie Railway Company
upon its merits, whether their acts not right;
that may be ali 80 or not; but 1t would Dy no
means follow that shis plantin was entitled to an
Injunction or receiver. l did not suppose this
suggestion OF the reference would be agreeable to
my antagonists, but 1t Is certainly an exceedingly
proper and most necessary thing In order to in
form Your Honor, sitting here and governed In .
great measure by no strict rule. but by that sound
discretion which is IN very large measure The
authority aud jurisdiction OF every magistrate, OF


LET THE CASE GO BEFORE A REFEREE


ana Will undertake to make issues enough for
my learned friends.


the counsel Will do, but what limits shall be put
upon this investigation II reference shall be had.
We had not opposed reference. All we now ask
is that there be some limitation put upon the sub
ect in regard to which evidence shall be taken. it
Is very evident the reference will occupy time
enough II the parties are restricted to those mat
ters legttmately brought into question In this
controversy. The gentleman only wants refer
ence that he may produce evidence upon the other
side In lieu OF affdavits.


Judge WestbrOuk suggested that probably man
would be appointed as referee who would not per-
init anything wrong. 1t was finally concluded to
adjourn the matter until three O'Clock p. M. to-
DAY, when Mr.. Mcfarland Will submit an order
for the JUDGES decision, and referee viii Oe ap-
pointed In case the order is granted.