The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-10-01
LIST l3 Nos.
Kent. Old,
-o-l7-b0 o. o.

-e-l7-5O &. 30
David Iendo, an expert, engaged in the lottery
business for twelve years, was examined by the
Commissioner on the part Of the prosecution. He tes-
titled that the figures as above were a combination
making the paper itself policy paper; the letter q
in combination with the figures Is known as gg if
these figures come up In combination III any lottery
Office, the holder OF the paper EMIT ed having paid
ten cents for 1t at the oice, to eve ten dollar
the paI er in question is known as policy Of num-
bersn or s'pollcy number.n
Cr0sseXamined by Nr. Adaus-Q Does the policy
business have anything; to do with otteriesS A. Not
parties not at all connected with lottery business
A. should Judge So
q. Have the managers Of the lottery business any
thing to do with this policy businessa A. Not that
know oil.
@ II is altogether different businesss A. pre-
sumo It'll
O. And any set OF numbers can be taken as the
basis of this businesss A. Yes.
tanned that this combination Of numbers had been
drawn, or any combination OF numbers you might
have purchased had been drawn, and you had ascer-
tanned this In any lottery office where the letters had
been displayed, where would you 20 for the amount
named on the paper-ten dollars IN this cases. A.
would go for the payment to the Office where had
purchased Ito the man had paid the ten cents to
and cross, but the foregoing portions OF his test-
timOny were principally important.
AZ the close OF the examination Mr. Adams, coun-
sci for the defendant moved for his discharge on
the ground that the evidence showed that this policy
and lottery business were two distinct businesses,
and that the act OF the defendant could not be made
an offence under the lottery law; also that it was
not proved that the defendant had written or issued
sold or received payment for the paper designated
policy paper. Counsel moved for the dismissal OF
the compa mt and the discharge OF the defend
the ground, further. that the statute as amended,
and under which defendant was held and proceeded
against, did not authorize criminal proceedings for
the nonpayment Of the special tax In cases OF this
kind.
The Commissioner denied the motions The de-
endant being committe for trial his previous bail
was surrendered, when fresh bail in the same
dant (Farrelll evidence given that he sold
policy paper similar with the exception OF the
bers to the one described, and that he filled up the
paper and received payment for 1t. Farrell was also
held for trial.
II would appear that these cases are but prelimn-
airy to the principal to come up before the Com
missioner on Saturday next, when the main point
raised by the defence will be ably discussed and
what turns upon the question OF the payment of the
bonds required by law TO be paid by lottery dealers
appears that In the lottery business IL Is neces-
Iary to furnish bonds known az lottery managers
oonds, and which give 10 the lottery managers a
monopoly OF the business. Ii will be shown that the
principal defendants in these suits presented some
time since to the several collectors in the Internal
Revenue districts their own bonds, which II appears
we're revoked by the Commissioner OF Internal
Revenue They then presented United States bonds,
which were also refused and the consequence Is the
present prosecution. The question will be argued
n the United States District Court, before Judge
Blatcnford. Mr.. Fullerton assisted by Mr.. 8. q.
Adams, appears for the defendants: United States
District Attorney Courtney for the government The
result OF the case Is looked forward to with much
interest.