New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-01-27

that in September 1863 a suit was commenced by Mr..
Morrissey growing out OF ne The 2,
an interest grants from MOrrssey That case was
never decided shortly aer nS Oh nm
come to among all the parties to that suit ana
which in It's preamble reeites that there was settlement
and compromise OF all the parties Ihs act apPca'eu
Mr.. Shea claimed that this was In opposition 10 mr'
SlmmOnss own complaint .
Mr. Henner replied twas not material. Nothing fur
ther was done Ia this suit and formal diseontlnuanee
entered because IL considered by all that the sun
time went by and nothing done IN the suit Was not
this OF itself proof that the suit was aodndonedf
Mr. Wood under this agreement. had stipulated 20 pay
Mr. simmons n certain sum monthly. Mr.. Wood failing
TO make these payments under the contract DIT simmons
considered. aud had right 10 consider unaer 8 m s
Court consisted In suppressiDg the material iacl tat t
suit dead when Mr. Wood pretended to change iaeG
and applied for the appointment OF n receiver. lie
counse had desired 70 discontinue the MorIissey SUIT
Ills client desired III ,,S m VIM that suit they
had been with every form OF technical GOecuoh
He had to be substituted as attorney Tor M hr &
matey they had been overcome. and now the SUIT was
by MT Justice oT Dteer becae MI
Anderson was his fsthernaw and II was claimed lha'
even made could not be disegarded 1t must
be vacated, and this order for the present Stood
The original dcnlty In this matter arose from trust
teresed lottery grants from States where they
were lawful finding cross purposes and conflicting an
interests to three trustees, Messrs Simmons Morrsey
and Davis Who however were to act with the consent
agreement had failed by tho failure OF some OF the
trustees and the litigation OF 1868 arose the close OF
the Morrssey suit 1t agreed that MI WOOD should
take Mr. sinmonss shares, and pay him 5000 per
month unti certain should be paid and In case OF
sbo ar Become snI pp aeo Void This had happened
M Simmons thoreupon became entitled TO and did bring
this suit and Morrssey duly appointed receiver
Mr. Shea reply argued that from the plaintls own
showing. 1t appeared that when the whole business was
Mr. mod had
last resource TO it, Mr. Simmons had been the mar
plot Of the business then as he was now 10 ge ln ou
an agreement had been made That agreement was LOT
sale OF interest in lottery business, executed III
this State by OF the state. 10 be performed IN
tins State IL not trust deed, but an executory
agreement for the sale OF lottery interests 10 ask inc
Court TO enforce such an agreement was as m as
the suit by the hghwayman for fair division OF pun
In 1863. and even then the parties had exhibited
dstrust all interested had placed the property
in the hands OF three trustees. . -, 81,
Mr. Shea cOntended great length that there was TINS
difference between that deed and the deed OF 1868 lie
conended that the lottery business was not technically
under ban Of turpitude which would prevent the re-
cogniton under Interstate comfy Of the grants lawful
wien not TO he exercised against OF the State Of
New.York. Still 1t was clear that the Oniy c0heelvaUIe
way In which the parties could have rights before the
Courts was by device OF trustee. Money received
by u agent without the sanction OF law might be ecOV
cred by a principal as money had aud received, but a
direct contract in contraventOn OF law could not be
enforced He insisted that under the trust deed tue u
tees might even by Courts be held to account
for moneys received by them under 1t for the cestus que
trusts that the contract between summons ana No0d
relating directly to the forbidden business couu not pe
enforced. ,
Ho then argued that the receivershp plainly OBJ.
tanned In bad faith. The appointed not, IL
was true 10 carry business but TO sell IL by pri
contract public SALE as he in his discretion should
reds of thousands Mr. Morrssey gave $4,000 security
The ink the order hardly dry when he sold 1t to
VIM L. Simmons the brother OF Iacharah h. summons,
for S25 900 Mr. Wood had taken Mr. M0rrisseys and Mr.
SlmlnOnss share at t2O0,OOO Mr.. simmons denies that
any part had been paid to him. But Mr. Wood shows
that over 500 900 had been paid Mr. simmOnss alega-
ton was not worthy of legal belief, since payment to
Morrissey was ayment joint account The reason
VIII made
in the Old suit MOrrssey had been dlscOntehted Win
smmonss action aud had sought make him disgorge
The vessel had then got into difficulties. Mr. Wood had
brought IL safely TO port and there were new grants IN
prospect, and the old deserers now sought TO regain
He had to remark on Mr. Morrissey's conduct in the
recelvershp though with no offensive intent to him. At
the time lie sold this business to Slmm0nss brother,
Murray & Co. held his own drafts Tor $1,000 Ihus,
besides property OF the concern. valued at over
100000 for only Mr.. smmonss share he sold his own
Mr Porter stated that appeared simply In the case
OF Cotton & DickersOn lie that his friend on the
other side had la ao n s Co
Judge Barnard. lie presumed that It was not intended
10 make any offensive charge against that Judge. .
Mr. Justice Cardozo said that In order TO AVOID mis-
apprehension he would state that Judge Barnard was
one OF ms most intimate 70 him 10 be
made his presence. He had not SO UNDERSTOOD tne
Judge Porter said It was he had understood
It that he had made merely this brief mention; Mr'
Porter continued 10 argue for some time that inc
plaintiffs IN this suit admitted that they were engaged in
unlawful business, and as such could not Dc hearu
at all 1900
ourned the Court asking Mr.. Porter to consider the
question he had asked Mr. Brady on the argument OF the
previous case Suppose persons not residents OF the
State but Of where the lottery business was law
.u should enter into agreement In relation to IT, ana
should subsequently disagree. Having become citizens
Of this state should they file bill to have this franchise
sold, would not the Court entertain such a Dill
Mr.. Porter replied that he knew what Mr. Brady had
answered He yielded 10 no one In his admiration oil
James T. Brady but he thought Mr. Bradys answer then
WAS hasy and he would have been inclined to answer
differently consideration