The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-04-02
From the NJ Y. Papers.


The announcement that Daniel Drew, the
noted Wall street stock OPERATOR had been ar
rested on the previous day, at the SUIT OF Joseph
B. Stewart and held to bail in the sum OF a
quarter of million dollars, created consider
able comment among the "bulls and bearsn of
the various menageries in the neighborhood OF
Trinity Church and the Custom House. James
Fisk, Jr., and William Belden, brokers, were
also arrested at the same time, aud held in the
sum of $4,000 each. The complaint contains
also the names OF Emmett D. Burr, Leonard
] Huyck, Andrew Mckinley, George w. Wiley,
| H. Henry Baxter, Henry Cohen, William G.
| Dornm, and Samuel w. Bocock as codeten-
! dants, and sets forth that on the 9th day of
| January, 1867, Joseph r. Stewart obtained a
| Judgment against Leonard HuYck for the sum
| OF S177, $780, as the amount of certain deal
| ings and transactions between them Upon
| this Judgment an execution was issued against
the personal and real property belonging to
| Huyck, but was returned by the Sheriff unsatis-
fed, as no property belonging to Huyck could
| be found in the county of New York. The
transactions out of which the liability arose
existed prior to November, 1866, and of the
! amount due it is claimed by Stewart that
the appropriation of certain securities in
| trusted to the latter gentlemen's safe
keeping, and which he used for
the purpose Of the joint operations of Huyck
and Others in the purchase and sale of Erie
Railroad stock. In the month of November,
| 1865, an arrangement was effected between
Burr Drew, Mckinley, Wiley, Cohen, Huyck,
Baxter, Dornin, and BOcock, for the formation
OF 'pool" in Erie, and by the terms of this
| agreement they agreed to speculate jointly
in ten thousand shares, or any part thereof, OF
| pany," either to buy or SELL or both, as the
case might be, the loss or profit to be divided
pro rata upon the amount of stock bought and
sold. The business to be done by Fisk Is
Belden, as brokers, subject to the order of
Z. d. Burr, was to furnish, for Drew and
burr, two thousand five hundred shares;
Huyck, per Fisk and Belden, two thousand FIVE
hundred shares; Cohen and Baxter, one
thousand shares each; and Wiley, ,Dornin,
Mckinley. and BococR, five hundred shares
each making in the aggregate nine thousand
shares. The stock was furnished, and it is
alleged that Huyck, by the appropriation of
the $50 900, was enabled to furnish at least $500
shares of the Erie, The operations of the pool
continued tor about three months, and were
controlled exclusively by Drew, though In the
name of Burr; on the 29th Of January, 1866, the
stock in the pool amounted to $500 shares, and
q further covenant was then made in writing,
by which the parties to the previous agreement
consented, in consideration of 81, to place the
$500 shares of Erie in common operation with
Drew, to which he was to contribute upwards
of 49, 300 shares Of the same stock. Drew was
to buy and sell, or both, as the state of the
market would warrant for sixty days. the other
parties to share pro rata, in the profits losses
of the transactions in proportion as the $500
shares might bear to the 5000, other parties
owning 5000 shares or less to be admitted int
the venture and participate equally with the
Others III the results. Either or any of the
parties, except Drew, were to be at liberty to
buy and sell Erie Oh his own account outside of
the common operation, and Burr was also re-
lieved from all responsibility in the manage
ment of the "poon existing under the 6rst
agreement. No ''other parties" we're ever ad-
mitted into the scheme, and 1t was confined to
the parties named. 1t is alleged that the work
ing OF the first agreement, prior 10 the organiza-
tion of project No. Q, had resulted in heavy
profits to the persons in the 'ring,n and
that ''t Drew and Burr had conducted the
operations and transactions honestly and fairly,
and not deceittully and frauduentlyn these
gains would have been largely in excess OF what
they were; that Fisk and Belden were then
aware of the fraudulent and deceitful acts of
Drew and Burr in reference to that agreement;
and that Drew with the knowledge and con.
sent of Fisk. Burr and Belden, for the purpose
OF inducing the parties to the first agreement to
enter the second operation, made a private
written contract with Baxter. agreeing to refund
to him all his stock and interest in the enter
prise, and guarantee him against any loss which
might thereafter arise. The complaint also
shows that there was no adjustment of the
transactions under the first agreement, but that
all the sales. purchases, and operations of that
concern were merged into scheme No. 2, and
carried on as an integral portion of that cove
nant, the parties participating in the re-
suits according to their proportions of stock
invested. Huyck became party to all these
transactions under the agreements; and it is
stated that Fisk and Belden, for the purpose of
committing to Drew the control of Huyck's in
terests, concealed from him all knowledge of
the secret contracts entered into by Drew and
the others. Burr and Drew made large sales
and purchases of the stock of the Erie Rail-
way Company on account of the parties inter-
ested under the first agreement as their brokers,
the result of which is not exactly known, but
Stewart charges that these operations were all
profitable and successful and that Huyck, on
the 29th of January, 1866, was justly entitled to
the moneys which had been advanced by him,
as well as the twenty-five hundred shares con.
tributed by him and the profits accruing there
from. As appears by the complaint, onor about
the 10Th of January 1866, Drew took under his
control all the shares of Erie stock, and accord
ing 10 the provisions of the second agreement
manipulated them In the market for sixty
DAYS, meeting with no losses whatever and
realizing handsome profits by the operations
but not as bound by the contract, EN-.
ploying Fisk and Belden to act as the
accounts of the transactions; on the con-
trary Drew caused the sales and purchase
to be conducted and carried on by other
brokers and dealers in this city, keeping the
accounts in fictitious names and concealing
from Huyck and the others who formed this
select coteri6 all his gains and operations under
the agreements; and 1t Is further claimed that
Drew never furnished the lS, 900 shares accord
ing to the terms of the second compact although
| ne represented that he had done So solely for
| the purpose OF obtaining the control of the
| S5OO contributed by the smaller fry, and appro-
prlatlng to himself a proportion of the profits
| thereby realized. further allegation is that
| while the stock held under the first agreement
| was standing at about S96'50 per share, Drew
| caused Burr, who was a man of no peeuniary
| means or responsibility and was In the em-
ployment of Drew, but to whose orders tue
| business done by Fisk and Belden under thaV
| agreement was subject, to absent himself rom
| the city upon some pretended business toI seVe-
| raj days, during which time Drew lnieIierea 20