New-York tribune., 1867-04-10

ms lneu Dy uc4dtul'
SUPREME COURT-CH& H&NHERs-APBrL 9.-B eioro Judg
BsRNAuD.
ANOTHER MOVEMENT IN THESERIE rooL-TPfIci-
TON rOR 4 DlsCuAEGE or DRLw FIsK AND
s,eua-. srf Drew srd Others
The defendants. Daniel Drew and Fisl, & Belden,
Wcre-Ou the COMPLAINT and affidavit ~ Nr. stewart, IN
which he claimed. thc representative Of Leonard
Uiyek share in thc profits OF pool Am Fiic mana gcd
by Mr. Drew-aucstcd and held 10 bail They now move
inal afdayits; FISK BC'dcu afdavits Ia contradic-
tOn o them. Tho original charge of Mr. stewart was that
Mr. Huyck had taken sccurtt brinngug Ia him, and on
the strength Of these had gone into Erie pool 10 the
extent OF 250J saress that The original pool wasony OF
Interested 10 % profit; that then Mr. Drew agreed IN
writing 10 add 1900 shnrc- and operate for tho benefit
tho pool to large prof1. which be appropriated
70 himself; that F.& * Beiden wero 70 have
been the brokers under the aTTeement, bH inst
Pihcrf WfT of t % a ed h a. & LEX Sopes5sa BeGsP
H. In support oi ths letter llnm Sir Ecdcn 20 one OF
the pool V. c. DogiD, WAS read. iIom which extracts
have been already given IN iepy. Flsk Beiden pre-.
20 Mr.. Stewart such were stated Boz stewart adavt
and al fb9rges @i ii'A1 "i unlf a,i'ihg' ,u ayes
that the Eric pools, both lst aud .econ rcshteH IN
cs that he hns been approached l9 some lcl o to So
Ol ont Of him; that Bee believed 10 Wu5 an ,f'ort eey
tort money but ncvcrttCess offered 10 submit zoe lh
ter to giltatIOl; that mo-. or l' 'll'A aHl purchases
were madethroueh Grotspeck CO. not 20 deceive hut
because was ioTc con- tpicnt ma, ne aia lul,sh ~
shares TO pool No p and tfai h" hs alNH5H been
Mn Eulr also daics fr stewards stIcmcnts as 60 ms
admissions. and says TIC fret Erie pool resulted Ia
Mr. Doruu ald M poosoch charec that iho use made
Of Ecdcus letter 10 hr Dorlm DJ aiF' Stewart ""S
Nr Beidcn S5ys that Icttcr was written hastily under
irritation and ho aiIctWhd ngIn" m cd ,"1 mm mm
had Judged DicW. and t d. had acted honestly ava
fairlJ f0Waid hs assocatcs, sustaining for himself a.
,cii Is for Ucfo heavy loss aud explains other
portions Of the letter. lie li hes ~! that ne never t
ccivod any specific from Ilnyck 70 be used IN The
pools hut had balance of about 600. the result of
other transactions 90 s credit when theF placed !" the
credit of the pools lie denies that me knows OF any
deceit or fraud connected with any Of the transactions
respecting either pool, and does not believe there Wa'
Nr Flsbs affidavit y 70 much the same eject, and
AYERS an indebtedness OF sto|alt 10 hnsct .,,,.
Mr. Slewars oidayt repeats me ofIglal statements
rs 10 the admissions cirCNustuhually and win
fuller details, and denies e greater part OF The now
70 was conondod on behalf Of the defendants that the
complaint did not pIc-"nt ease on which an Order ~
arrest could be granted the aflldaNt oi nr' hls%hlt
contained but two facts stated on positive knGsli&dse &
ever taxing II ne altogchcs nue. dd moi warrant an ar
rest. The following are Mr.. Fields point; 80 ,
First. This is on Hc.iOn between partners All tho
tanFacons set forth IN tIe complaint grow out of tho
two agreements marked a. eAiihit5 nnd 2, annetcd
partics IN such an action WHEELER Il De for wrong
upon contract arrest cannot be ordered Ducr, co.
Second The demand of relief cxprrssedin the follow
IND tono1go,. '.Vhcfcfofc the plaintiff demands iudg
mrnt against the said defcrduuts Daniel Drew. James
fisk ir and William jcdcE, Tor s d0udgCs, 10 the un
ard amount Of fao0COO md upward, fur hc frauds 0d de-
Cfiig and wrongful, deceul and fraudulent act l1ac
ad ior rorcrs,n NJ tie c0yiio furnished by the said
Huycl 70 audfor tie eold joint adventure and common
rocy1iion and tie share 0f Og,s and qT0fs arising
thcreupoH, 20 which tie sad lluyck War auh th9 .At
nlautf as ms as1nce and creditor. s emitted; and that
Tor he rurDose of oSccgtai,g sch dGHagcs and the
sGTt s q G Sa Saa G&h he % 5 Daniel Drew S and the said
Fisk EcIda be required ana coinre.ltd 10y the order oil
s Court aud The directions tEeteOi 10 render an
account" sc. If the plainH could have found few
more words 10 press his ideas, We should not nave u
deretO0d lin at AL Even u is not easy 10 MAKE Out
Ais meaning. But the whole d. seems 10 p thaJ h9
warts conn snsatiOn n damages for alleged fraud ana
deceit The alleged conversion OF the capital appears 10
be set forth part OF tho haudHhd the accounting
asked for would seem 90 be for te purpose o aseclt.n %
action be for damages by reason OF hdhd, OF
for conversion OF property, or Tor m account,
or FOR an three, the result - far as ne arrest ls con-
ccrncd must be the Tho action Is III whole or III
nprt sfor the recovery ~ damages on cause OF action
not arising OF contract" and IN such an action an ar
rt cannot be ordered unless tho defendant X nOnresi-
js upon contract the arrest cannot be sustained IL IS
not authorized 10y sub orhcre was no receipt or money
~ q iiducarJ capacity Mory SUB +'lor the OOis"uoh
Was not fraudulcutly incurred -
Third. Aa tire defendant Drew the plainttTs case
rests altogether upon information ana hcei except ~ ~
single conversation which tho plaintiff alleges nc had
with him This conversation, II taken Just as stated con-
fas nothing TO warrant an arrest. Therefore, Whetrr
fTc two prcNiOus pCnsre wen taken not, the order
Vit w" ktr t,r., rl,cut1 M, vacated for want OF
a uffcicnt affidavit 20 authorize it. ,
Tourfh As 10 The defendants Fisk and Belden the am
davis now printed their part overthrow al the pre-
tcpses on which the arrest ordered and they should
De discharged even u the irst aud second points arc
NPr Hirlseye for the plaintiff argued that papers
shaved "A clear ease OF fraud fairly By the ih-
dayits and that tbs order must stand .........
The Court reserved It's decision -,
ID ID Field s. b. Field FOR defendants; Martin Smith
for defendant Drew, Biidseyc Crosby FOR plaintiffs
CARD FROM Mr.. G. i. DEThiOLD.
To rr Prpuc: 4 base attempt has been made by
h ra.i gieeein-s arainst conspiracy dd thea 81
ctm Suns d money paio,1es the ~n', als..o .. I's' @