The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-04-04
THE WALL STREET IMBROeLIO.
AhdaVlts of Daniel Drew, Fisk g. Belden,
VIM u Dorntu, E. ID. Burr, and Samuel
5ocOSkT Interesting determinations,

The complaint IN the case Of Joseph B.
Stewart against Daniel Drew and others,
charging these gentlemen with collusion and
fraud in regard to the Erie stock-pool transac-
tons, and which resulted in the arrest OF Drew
and Fisk q Belden, has elected from the de-
PENDANTS in the action a series of voluminous
aihdavits, denying under oath almost every
material allegation contained in the statement
of Mr. Stewart.
Daniel Drew, being sworn, deposes that he
never to his knowledge had a dollar belonging
to Leonard Huyck or Stewart, or in" which
either either OF them had an interest; that both the
Erie pools" resulted in loss; that he never at
any time stated to Stewart that profits had been
made in those transactions amounting to about
1000, or any other sun; or that he Drew
had not kept complete account of all pur-
chases and sales of Erie stock: that every
charge OF fraudulent dealing made against him
by Stewart is false; that three or four
weeks ago a person came to him
(DreW) representing that Stewart was get
ting up a great suit against him about the
Erie pools, and that Stewart owed him $1,000,
which he was trying to get, and thought
Stewart could be settled with; Drew replied that
be owed nothing, and would pay nothing. The
affiant further declares that at subsequent
interview with Stewart deponent told him that
the operation had resulted in a loss; that he
Drew became convinced that Stewards object
was TO eXtort money from him, through his dis
IKE OF the scandal and notoriety that a suit
like the present one would provoke; that the
brst pool was controlled entirely by Il. D. Burr;
lndJ uepOnenL 0aQ nothing TO do Win IL 0eyOnu
subscribing, with Burr, $500 shares; that Burr's
absence from town was upon business upon
railroad and was not a pretended or unneces-
sary affair; that at the time pool No. was
formed the stock merged into 1t from pool No.
! had fallen, and was worth less than cost; that
no other written agreement was made with BaX-
ter; that deponent did not make, authorize or
know, OF any representations being made to
Huyck; that none OF the sales were made
through Groesbeck & Co.; and that in not
making them through Fisk d Belden there
was no intention to defraud or deceive any one;
that nothing was concealed from any parties;
that deponent did furnish the $4,000 shares TO
pool No. 2, and bought and sold for the Joint
benefit of his associates, but the losses we're
much greater than the profits; that he Drew
never combined with any one to cover up the
transactions; that neither Huyck nor Stewart
ever demanded an account from him; and that
since the close of the transactions, he has
always been ready and willing to account, and
has made such declaration to those who
inquired.
William c. Dornin deposes that the letter of
William Belden to him, which has been pub
lished, was always considered by him rs conf
dental, and was used without his knowledge
or consent; two or three weeks ago Stewart
went into his Office, and asked to see letter he
had received from Belden; Mr. Dornin says
that after being positively assured by Stewart
that the letter should not be shown or used IN
any wav against Drew, Fisk, or Belden, he
handed it to him, and left 1t for a time in Stew
arts somn oPT9 Hs reup ad from the R
letter away with him; it was returned late in
the afternoon of the same day, Mr.. Stewart
stating that he had not shown it TO any one
but Mr.. Birdseye, nor copied it, Dornin after
wards heard that it had been photographed; !;
Mr.. Stewart has also repeatedly endeavored,
through other parties, to induce Mr.. Dornin to
join him in the suit against Drew and the
other defendants, but he has refused so TO do.
Samuel W. Bocock deposes that he was in the
Office when Stewart returned the letter, and that
Stewart then declared that he had not copied it
or shown it to any one except Mr.. BIrdseye and
that efforts were made by Stewart to induce him
to Join in the suit against Drew.
James Fisk, Jr, one of the defendants, de-
poses that he has known Stewart for many
years, and that at the time when, as he now
charges, he thought deponent was engaged in
schemes to defraud him. Stewart was borrowing
money on pitiable pretences, even to sums of
SIS to Sl0 for his butcher, and that Stewart now
owes him upwards OF 500, 600, mostly borrowed
money, and is largely indebted to him for
balances on accounts, etc.; that several weeks
ago he asked Stewart to repay the borrowed
money, upon which Stewart said he was
"going to work at the Erie pool" and would
soon have some money; upon Stewart being
asked what he meant, an angry. discus
sion ensued, and Immediately thereafter
deponent brought suit against him TO recover
the money loaned. Fisk further deposes that
he never told Stewart that the profits from the
pool operations exceeded $1,000,O0G or any
other amount, or that the profits we're or would
have been large il Drew had not cheated or
defrauded his associates in the pool; that he
(Fisk) never said that with Drew's money and
the management of Fisk Belden they could
defeat the claims of all other parties to the
pools; that he never stated to Stewart that Fisk
4 Belden had received from Huyck more than
$50 600 to be invested in Erie; that, In point of
fact, Fisk & Belden never received any sum
from Huyck for that purpose, but had placed a
balance OF $26, 600, which was in their hands, in
favor of Huyck, to the credit of the pools, and
that both OF the pools resulted in loss, and
were fairly managed.
William Beden deposes that the letter annexed
to the complaint, and which has been published,
was written year ago, at time when he was
inritated against Nh. Drew for proposed un-
friendly act, having no connection with the
Erie pools; that it was written hastily, aud was
| only intended for the eye of Mr.. Dornin, who
| was an intimate friend; that though deponent
was then sincere in what he wrote, he has since
| been convinced of his mistake, and has eX-
| pressed to Drew and Dornin his regret al
| having written it; that when it was written
| the transactions were still open, and that he
/ had been wrongfulY led to suspect Mr.. Drew's
sincerity; that Mr.. Drew subsequently ex-
planned everything to deponents satisfac.
! ton, and that he is equally convinced that Mr..
| Burr had acted with strict integrity that he
| (Belden) had never seen copy of the letter
from the time it was written until it was repro
duced in the complaint, and that upon reading
meanings which he did not intend to convey
| that the expression contained in the letter
''Recollect the first pool stood at a profit
| meant only that at the time to which ne refer
red the stock could have been sold at an ad-
| vance that 1t had not been sold, and after.
| wards fell and the net result of each and both
| pools was a loss; that Fisk q Belden never re.
! ceiyed any specific sum from Huyck to be used
in the said pools, and that the only interest
Huyck had in the pools; was as stated by Mr..
| Fisk; that deponent never concealed any OF the
transactions In relation to the pools; that he
does not believe or know of any fraud or deceit