The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-28
EXPLOITING A WALL STREET Pool.

Promise Of Light on the Old 'sCOrner''
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
Railroad stock-Bitten Brokers Trying
to Get Square-How the Old Thing
Works, hut Who Are the Workers q
Question OF Grave Doubt.
The growing frequency of ''pool" operations in
Wall street. which, according to the general accep-
tation OF the term, is nothing more or less than
combination OF certain parties to get the best of
certain other parties, would seem to make 1t
necessary to add another word to eur criminal
glossary. Hardly has Judge Fancher, at Supreme
Court Chambers, been called upon to pass judy
ment upon recent alleged "pool" operation in
which Daniel Drew Is claimed to have been one OF
the principal conspiratOrs than he Is asked to do
the same thing IN regard to q transaction OF SINH
lar character, OF like alleged origin and develop
ment.
PLAIN, UNvARNIsHED TALE
We will call 1t such, although the counsel on the
other side, after hearing the story, pronounced it
somewhat embroidered narrative. This story Is
eliminated in an affidavit Of william W. Earle,
which was submitted yesterday to Judge Fancher,
and made the basis of motion of discovery. the
nature OF which will be more particularly shown in
what follows. Mr.. Earle states that in May, 1871,
he was one Of the firm OF Earle 4 Saltonstall and
that their business was stock broking. About
this time, his affidavit continues an agreement
was entered into by George $. Scott, William f.
X, ~ f. Va
Cornelius X. Garrison William 5. Woodward and
others for the purchase OF the stock Of the Chicago
Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company for the
purpose of enhancing the market value and making
large profits by its subsequent sale. The firm Of
scott, strong Go. were made the managers OF
the "poOl," and Mr.. Scott was further authorized
TO associate with him Mr.. s.. Woodward as as
sstant manager. Pursuant to the authority thus
conferred on him, Mr.. Woodward employed the
firm OF Earle & Satonstail to purchase the stock
designated and from May %, 1871. TO June % 1871
the latter firm bought upon his orders 900 shares
n 10 insk
thus far. On the delivery of the stock. however,
payment was refused, and the result was, as Mr..
frnRETiso OUT THE MEMBERS OF THE FOOL.
As Is evident from the date OF the transactions
described the matter has been hanging fire for
some time Having exhausted every other posi-
bic way OF having their losses made good to them,
Messrs Earle Salt0nstal now invoke the interpo-
sition OF the Courts. Mr.. William H. Anthem hav-
ing ma ie verbal statement Of the contents OF the
affidavit OF Mr. Earle asked the Court for an order
directing PERMISSION TO be given them to inspect
the alleged agreement with view to enable them
to discover the proper parties to be made defend.
ants. He stated that when pay day came the pool
was est tnrent,ls and MIR. Woodward iugi-
tive from Wall street. They could not, he Insisted,
| to sue until they could see the agreement under
| which the ''poolr was formed and ascertain the
mere was no doubt, he said Of such la pool having
t peen person named naTies dodo
should inform themselves or the exact
nature and form OF this agreement and ascertain
the names OF all the parties to the combination.
Since the suit had been commenced he had been
informed that he was in error In embracing among
the defendants some OF the parties named, and
that others had been lett out. II was generally
conceded TACT that there was a SPOOL aud he de-
sired TO get at all the papers and accounts.
OPPOSING ANY SUCH FISHING EXPEDITION.
Mr.. Marbury strenuously resisted the motion. He
claimed that 1t was well settled that an order Tor
discovery will not be granted to discover the
names OF parties defendant; that the necessity"
and 'materialityn OF the evidence sought for have
not been properly shown; that It is not enough
that such necessity is alleged under oath by a
party not u counsellor at law. such person. ne
further insisted, Is not competent to Judge
OF what is material" or necessary" In the
sense used IN the Code and in the new
rule Of this Court. The moving aflldavit did
not even state that the opinion Of the afiiant as
TO "Decessity" or "materiality' IL based on
the advice OF counsel. THAT the discovery Is
necessary the party Is required to swear ON the
advice oil COUNSEL" The nature Of the information
sought for is not set forth, so that the Court can
Judge OF its necessity" or 'materahty." The
AFFIDAVIT must that there are entries, and
also must state the character Of the entries. The
facts, furthermore, should he positively affirmed
and so fully set forth that the Court may be
satisfied that the discovery is ''indIspen-
! SADLY necessary" Affidavit on Information and