The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-10-06
SUPREME couaT-spEcIAL TERM.
Tho Lottery DTnnagers' TribuIatfons-Con.
clusiOn Of the Argument.
Before Judge CardOZO

The Lottery Mnnagers' TribuIatfons-Con.
clusiOn Of the Argument.
Before Judge Cardozo.
John M0r7fsSevus. Zac7adridh e. Simmons Charles
II. Murray, Benjamin Wood ana 7toenty Oilers
The argument in this case, in which plaintiff seeks
to compel forfeiture Of about 1921 000 was resumed
yesterday. The cause Of action, If any exists, in
view OF the nature of the business In which the
liability Is claimed to have arisen, Is based upon
transaction In which Morrissey sold simmons. in
December, 1867 twenty-sx aud half shares In
common lottery enterprise valued at $2l2, 00o the
terms being $751; 900 cash and the balance to be paid
In monthly instruments OF $4,000 each. Simmons
paid the instruments for four months, and then failed
to meet his obligations, and Morrissey now claims
receiver be appointed. John McC0ol and BENJAMIN
Wood appeared by counsel yesterday on the side Of
the plaintiff.
Mr. Shea, on behalf Of Mr. Wood, in support OF the
ground that the court would interfere TO enforce the
rights OF the plaintiff argued at considerable length
snow sat ts If n 9Ss e mes WAS
could take cognzance OF It, inasmuch as Its relations
here extended to other States under whose laws 1t
was authorized and therefore legal. He also cited
England to 90 that in France which was there per-
the case Of Maclntyre VS.. Parks e Met, 2oIl in
which security by mortgage was given In New York
ag agree to be performed in Massachasets and
the ss OF the matter to which the contract related
was In Delaware. the security was given Tor the
ware, where lotteries are not under the ban Of the
Law.
some discussion then arose as to the propriety of
admitting Mr.. Morrsseys anidavit denying the
statement In Mr.. Simmons affldavit that the con-
alteration was Illegal or that there q want OF
consideration. The court decided TO admit 1t merely
as a denial but declined to allow the other side TO
snswer it. on the ground that II would be curnula-
tive, they having already asserted what was here
denied.
Mr.. Brady wanted to know what the receiver was
TO do II he was appointed
Mr. shea replied that II appointed the title to the
property In question would be vested In him, to dis
tribute II under and in compliance with the order or
the court.
Mr. Brady inclined to the belief that the receiver,
the agent Of the court, would be engaged in
rather novel enterprise II he undertook to
manage the lottery or policy business In this
city behalf OF the Supreme Court. In the
course OF his argument he claimed 1t would
be unjust to appoint receiver in relation
15 shares OF this property because 0fthe allegation
that II be ing msmanaged, when as the facts show
cd there merely a difficulty between q man who
owned twenty six shares and another party In regard
TO an individual transaction Because. "a he alleged
Simmons had violated his agreement, he now sought
to bring In all the BEN Charles and mpleaded Them
Counsel for the plaintiff in his closing argument
said that Mr., Simmons dared not aver that he owned
single share Of this property to-day and was playing
with Justice for the purposes this application, and
defended the course pursued by Mr.. Wood In asking
the court to protect him In this matter which these
defendants wished TO escape from.
The argument Of both sides occupied the entire
day and at its close the court took the papers, reserv
ing its decision.