Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JOSEPH J. CRILLY, AND WILLIAM E. HENNER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 95 

DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1960 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Joseph J. Crilly, and William E. Henner, Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 95 

Complaint and Notice of Hearing Under Section 6(b) of the Commodity Exchange 

Act 

There is reason to believe that respondents, Joseph J. Crilly and William E. 

Henner, have violated the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., Chapter 1) 

and the rules and regulations made pursuant thereto, and in accordance with the 

provisions of section 6(b) of the said act (7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., § 9), this 

complaint and notice of hearing is issued stating the charges in that respect as 

follows: 

I 

Respondent Joseph J. Crilly, an individual whose address is 110 North 

Franklin Street, Chicago 6, Illinois, is now and was at all times material to 

this complaint a registered floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a 

member of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. 

II 

Respondent William E. Henner, an individual whose address is 110 North 

Franklin Street, Chicago 6, Illinois, is now and was at all times material to 

this complaint a registered floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a 

member of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. 

III 

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange is now and was at all times material to this 

complaint a duly designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act. 

IV 

On August 4, 1960, respondent Joseph J. Crilly, in his capacity as floor 

broker representing various registered futures commission merchants, had 

received and had in his possession for execution on behalf of his various 

principals, a number of orders to sell October 1960 egg futures on the Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange and a number of orders to buy such futures on the said 

Exchange. Thereupon the said Joseph J. Crilly, shortly prior to the opening of 

the trading session on that day, turned over several of such orders to 

respondent William E. Henner for handling by the said William E. Henner - to 

wit, orders to sell 7 carlots of October 1960 egg futures and an order to buy 

one carlot of such future. 

V 

Shortly after respondent Henner had received the above-described orders from 

respondent Crilly, and during the opening period of the trading session on the 
Page 2 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange, respondent Henner sold 20 carlots of October 1960 

egg futures to respondent Crilly at 30.65 cents per dozen, applied 7 carlots of 

the said sale against the selling orders which he had theretofore received from 

respondent Crilly, and took the remaining 13 carlots into his personal account. 

Respondent Crilly applied the purchase of the said 20 carlots against buying 

orders which he had in his possession, as described in paragraph IV. The said 

20-carlot sale by respondent Henner to respondent Crilly established the high 

price quotation for August 4, 1960, on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and was 

the only transaction at that price during that day. Immediately thereafter, 

respondent Henner purchased one carlot of October 1960 egg futures from 

respondent Crilly at 30.50 cents per dozen and applied such purchase against the 

buying order which he had theretofore received from respondent Crilly, and 

respondent Crilly took the sale side of the said transaction into his personal 

account. 

VI 

By reason of the acts and transactions described in paragraphs IV and V, 

respondent Crilly offset orders for the sale of October 1960 egg futures against 

the orders of other persons for the purchase of such futures, in willful 

violation of section 4b(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1958 ed., § 

6b(D)); and respondents Crilly and Henner executed purchases and sales of a 

commodity for future delivery in a manner which was not open and competitive, as 

required by section 1.38 of the rules and regulations (17 CFR 1.38), and in 

willful violation thereof. 

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that this complaint and notice of hearing be 

served upon the respondents. The respondents will have twenty (20) days after 

the receipt of this notice of hearing in which to file with the Hearing Clerk, 

United States Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D. C., an answer with an 

original and five copies, fully and completely stating the nature of the defense 

and admitting or denying, specifically and in detail, each material and relevant 

allegation of this complaint. Allegations not answered will be deemed admitted 

for the purpose of this proceeding. Failure to file an answer 

will constitute an admission of all the material allegations of this complaint 

and a waiver of hearing. The respondents are hereby notified that unless 

hearing is waived, either expressly or by failure to file an answer and request 

a hearing, a hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. local time on the 10th day of 

January 1961, in Chicago, Illinois, at a place therein to be specified later, 

before a referee designated to conduct such hearing. At such hearing the 

respondents will have the right to appear and show cause, if any there be, why 

an order should not be made revoking or suspending the registrations of the 

respondents as floor brokers under the act and directing that all contract 

markets refuse all trading privileges to the respondents for such period of time 

as may be determined. 

It is ordered that this complaint and notice of hearing be served on the 

respondents at least twenty (20) days prior to the date set for hearing. 

Done at Washington, D. C., 

November 30 , 1960. 

/s/ Clarence L. Miller 

Clarence L. Miller 

Assistant Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 3