The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-12-17
Superior Court-Spcclal Term.
Before Hon. Judge Hoffman.
srOcKJoBBING OPERATIONS.

DHa le.-Ffancs H. Salas Sidney O. Gsnin and
Aired Lockwood.-The testimony In this case con-
tnned To- day Isaac O. Lea again recalled deposed that
". H. j. Hayes had 2eo5 shares ON the 7th April, and
2306 the 9th; L. I. Hoyt had shares ON January
D. he received 400 transferred 100 January O. and
100 January Il on the Sth he had 100; on the Sth
April the Hayes Transferred 400 shares.
Jacob Hayes deposed that ne had no Transaction with
defendants the 9Th April witness neither bought nor
scd nor transferred nor any shares from tnem
,ns sth and ZOO we Owned, and mad borrowed money
en- sometimes take stock without taxing transfer In
stead o. that We .ss S: s mi o 2,
remember any transaction with defendants about that
s s.nss ~ ssr.nsIss or IF asasna:D ..r.
the defendants books, whether they sold any Mica
yAsua stock time between 9th January and 7th April
January they sold 100 shares Nicaragua TO W. A. steb-
bins, u 49, buyers option and 100 to r. L. Cutting, at
2x buyer 80; on 10th January 100 70 r. L. Caing 1t
2as, buyer 80; on 10th, 26o to A. Fleming, At lSA,
buyer so, Attn March, 100 to G Livingston, at 225z,
buyer 30; on 18th March, 400 TO Groesbeck Brothers,
me cause was then summed by Mr. Tracey for defend.
anita, and Mr. o. Field for plaintiff The following are
The points upon Mr.. Field submitting his
The plaintiff deposited with the defendants IS shares o.
lawa be made BY purchase
o. ny shares i, Of Nicaragua stock -,
,hey bound the piain the stock deposited
g. lawful valid within both the stock job
bug Ac and hs statute Of frauds and on which the painn
contracts by defendants the pur
ed The seller the stock q me tune Of The
NE IS ae T So so Ss
enforced one Of them.
dsS Esssyns stocks On Invalid
sans had not in fact made valid contracts for the stock on
Ne 81 q 1n me Sa
he as ds X ha nG % as aa me-
gSI ssae have saved !. least cen. 500 and
% sa DssS Sn III s ss de
is at liberty now to recall his deposit
justly he % s' he hs1s
having held the pain the
Violated their duty in selling the stock on
sSs while They % hold for The and
sher BY selling time they have the
ne sne 4e S: L s nosns Thsy
h9 the s,oci, but should restore him his deposit.
sble with the liable therefore the deposit
&. On 70 Ssy he
TO- The reasons heretofore given of them
he would be permitted 70 charge the plaintiffs
sbe purchase because OF the Of $3.50
30 he he 81
ssS with ,h psn Sns ateT the fo The
PROOF on The Subject subject ''A'''' ''''A'I'' '''" -
.. s.s % & n 81
asncs has BEEN given that he defendsns borrowed
sSsS lime statute S.as only half Of
value Of ne stock when purchased for o.
sold for l cent unreasonable and ought not TO be
allowed.
IS The result then will be hisIf the purchases held
invalid the defendants should be sdudged to return the Sixth
Avenue stock TO the pans IT. the other hand the
sAases be held valid then the question how much
the plaintiff be charged for the alleged advance 5000
9th Of january The plaintiff submits that he should
be charged nothing because Of the premium Of $3.50
beng the defendants had the
their and secondly If the other offences passed
sle pan!a. should 6e CHARGED with the the prise
bore the OH Of January which "a and he should be
reded with at the price bore the 18th Of March which
Wa p
TIE Judge took the papers and reserved his decision