The New York herald., 1867-03-31
THE GRAND WALL STREET OPERATION.

THE GRAND WALL STREET OPERATION.
The Reccns Arrest Of Noted Brokers-Leon-
srdHuyct. and Joseph B. Stewart is Limbo
They are Charged with Conspiring TO De-
frasd the untsed States Government-The
Rrie Stock Psois-The Sequel 60 the Coi-
lapse Of the Merchants Bank ef Washing
ton, &c.
fhe announcement contained exclusively in the
herald Friday morning thai Daniel Drew, tho noted
VAN street operator had been arrested the pre-
yoas day at the OF Joseph B. Stewart held 10
Sats in the sum quarter OF million dolls created
considerable among the 'bulIs and Aears Of
the yarsoss menageries in the neighborhood OF Trinity
thurca and the Custom House James Fisk yr and
william Beden, brokers, also arrested the same
ljne, aad hold In the sum OF $4,000 each The CON-
baint contains also the names OF Emmett d. Burr
leonard Huyck, Andrew Mckinley, George W. Whey
y Henry Baxter, Henry Cohen, William G. Dornn and
Samuel W. Bocock co-dcfendants, and sets forth thai
the 9th day Of January, 1867, Joseph b. Stewart cb
eined Judgment against Leonard Huyck for the sun
e $l77,59 90, as the amount OF certain dealings
transactions between them. Upon this judgment an
execution was issued against the personal prop
ey belonging to Huyck but returned by the SherI
snsatised, property belonging 10 Huyck could be
found in the county OF New York. The out
sf which the liability existed prior November
1885, and OF the amount due Il Is claimed by
Stewart that upwards Of $4,000 Obtained by
Huyck by the Appropriation Of certain securities
trusted TO the latter genemans safe keeping and
he used for the purpose OF the Joint operations Of Huyck
and others in the purchase and OF Erie Railroad
stock. In the month Of November, 1865, an arrange
ment was effected between Burr. Drew, Mckinley, Wiley,
Cohen, Huyck, Baxter Dornin and Bocock, lor the
formation Of pool" in Erie, and by o. this
agreement they 'agrecd 10 speculate jointly 10 ten
thousand sharoa, any part theroof OF the common
stock II the Erie Railway Company" either buy or
SELL hoth the might be- the loss profit be
divided pro rata upon the amount OF stock bought
sold Tho business 70 be done by Fisk Beden, bro.
kess subject the order of D. Burr, furnish
for Drew and Burr, tEo thousand hundred shares
Huyck. Fisk and BedeD, two thousand I've hundred
shares; Cohen and Baxisr one thousand shares each,
ssad shares each maDy and in ne ys
ninc thousand shares Tho stock was fufnis6ed.
>sna . alleged that Auyck BY the appropriation Of the
he Ere he operations OF the pool continued for about
- months, and were controlled exclusively by Drew,
r. the name OF Burr on the Goth Of January,
though In 'he pooi amounted 10 Q, 800 shares, aud l
1860 the stock i. : made in writing, by which 4
further covenant waA tn.- ~ CONSENTED in
see.!ea. ne parties to the previous agrevn..-.
smssue.ason 0i ~ TO place the 1900 shares
common operation With Drew, TO which was to con-
s rssw was 70 BUY and sell. or BOTH the the
70 snare Dso ra m H. Or ssty he other pare'
q
mu-S ,art,es owning 1900 shares OF leys TO be ad.
:. into the venture and participate @ equally with
ss onss sr ~ n1 70 Ss at Guy and M Ere
his account outside Of TING common operation and
Burr was also relieved from all nSa a 10 rs ns
agreements No "other partcs'' we're ever admitted
into The scheme, apa y was confined to The parties
agreement, priorto the orgsnz.ton Of project No; =
hAa resulted "a heavy profits 70 the persons n me me
riug" and that "f Drew and Burr had conducted tne
Separations AID transactions honestly and fairly and not
Aeceiifully and frauducnty," these gains would
sk sd Beidcn wore then aware Of the fraudulent and
Aecrsru acts Of Drew and Burr tn reference 70 Ina,
co.snn. Of Fisk Bur- and Bedcu, for tnr purpose Of
ipccing the pA1tics to be hrt agreaclt 10 enter t1e
seeonai operation matte tT1sac wr,'en eoL rast "'.n
sarst inc oaoriuise, and gaarantce him asaast Yy
lesA which might taorcaiter arise Tao ysOm
OF the transactions under tho first esreement, |
bat that all the sales, purchases and operations
earrsd integral portion Of Inv covenant, the
parues parcipatng in the results .ccordine 70 tneir
q iii thcsc wssacsons under ,ny agreements; and y
stated thai Fisk and Beiden tor o purpose Of ccmm
so Aim all knowledge Of the secrc contrasts entered
Anss by Dro~ and tho others Bsrr and Drew made mad,
Ixe saes and purchases che stock OF the Eric Rail-
~ Company account of the parties Interested under
agreement their brokers' The result Of which
= not exactly known stewart charges that these
operations were all profitable and successful and that
Hayck on the goth OF January, 1889 was Just en-
him as we'll the twenty five hundred shares contrib
sed BY him and all the profits accruing thcrefrom As
appears complaint about the 10th Of Janu.
sry 1865 Drcw took under control all the shares Of
STOCK and according 70 the provisions OF the second
agreement manipulated them IN the market Tor sixty
6syr meeting with no losses Whatever and realizing
Sandstone profits by tue operations but Dot as bound by
the contract employing Fisk and Belden 10 act as the
brokers for the purpose Keeping the accounts Of the
sransactions the contrary Drew caused the sales AMI
purchases 10 be conducted aud carried on by other
brokers and dealers this city, keeping the accounts
mctous and conccalng from Huyck and she others
anssr ihs she AID Is further claimed
furnished the IS 300 shares according 10
ssssd that ne had done So solely pursoso Of
pbtainng the control Of the 800 contributed by the
sSc proas thereby realized further allegation i that
while the stock held under the nrst agreement was
who wa man Of no pecuniary means or responsibility
and in the employment Of Drew but TO whose orders
shs business done by Fisk and Been under tina. agree
mont was subject absent himself from the city upon
pretended business for several days durlnS Which
time Drew nrerfcrcd to prevent any sale o. the stocS
and engaged largely In operations IN Erie, Tor the pur
pose Of private advantage 10 himself, by means .. sn,cn
considerable decline in stock Of r.. ere airosd took
ssssss.ss AZ the q n: sixty DAY. during
hcn Drew bad sCns s informed his ASSOCIATES n inc
.s,os little that he had successfully
ssss ss 20 ss ne q about 10 his aDd
shst n was rvisable that the agreement should be
ona,s,s OF the ORIGINAL contracts This proposition re.
verbal assent his associates, aud IL chaped
ne complaint that ne operated the stocks a. formerly
skder this new covenant employing other brokers
ehan Fisk and Belden and conceang transactions
fictitious names and Otherwise and thereby prevent
snG bic associates from tracing the Of his pur
chescs and sales ln these operations II is alcged~
realised profits TO the amount Of 100000 APT up-
wards, all Of which gains 10 claimed, ought y :, % M
viAed among The parties TO the 10 po-
portion 70 the capital invested by tne common
eoerpris and no portion Of scc ,s accrue sv 70
him. for the reason thss ne aiip~ 20 uh'sn any pro
portion OF the aggregate sA,ck or to allow fnk
.ad Relden to keep tbs soccun's % Q. transactions.
sxrecmsnt Nav 81 1856, Huyck and his asso-
Ciatcs n 10 -sged. entitled 10 OF
sha fun Transactions and delivery Of their entire
including pro&s realized from the operations Of the
POOL and they expected 10 rcoeive the same aud
demanded from Drew, Burr, Belden aud Fisk such
accounting. The latter gentlemen the plaintiff sta,cs,
ad and Will de-.