New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-02-19
THE LOTTERY SUIT
.n,u ROEDlGER'S CLAIM.


ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL JUDGE j. r. pHHi .
cu,ect-. SEALED VERDICT To DE GIVEN ON
MONDAY.
The trial of the suit of Adam ROediger against
2 + simmons and others resumed yesterday, III 'no
Court OF Common Pleas, before Judge joseph T. lay
II was decided by the defense to submit the e'sc " w
fury without presenting any evidence MI ui -,
ouened his argument by saying that this case "o Pc
N ,he iury on the imperfections Of the piuhth .
Tho amount 10 be recovered had been reduceu i'u"i
s1O 67 to slOO 9s He thought that the Judgment y, ~
conrt the policy slips In evidence wa" J
There was nothing In the case to recommend INC PAM"
IN any ,ury as he was not checked IN his career ' WV
finued on In this system OF making MONEY. ii' a,'
that this WIS lawsuit for the benefit Oh Henry 'oo"'
who had five cases cOnrt TO decide VINO "er' mo man
ayers of these lotteries The reason ttat the uo
80 hrio witnesses TO prove the innocence or these DC
tndauts was that IL would subject these men, WHO nave
snch large interests severe crossexailha'on una
would present different aspect TO the jury
AR Putuey arguing for the plaintiff. said that the de-
PENDANTS we're professed law-brcakers and had been
,gace in the commission OF crimes all their lives. They
were not now felOns. because jures had not yet con
yicted them. They contaminated the morals OF the com
mupity especially OF those III humber paths OF me-
The auestion of law regarding the amount claimed Tor
policy slips TO be determined hereafter lie tneh
reviewed the testimony duplicating he hessrs SUMMONS
and Adams and Murray as principals. He concluded by
sayug that ROedger would not have brought ths case II
the defendants had paid him the $1,000 when he clas
As having drawn, that the defendants told nun tey
would throw stairs and break his legs If ne did
not clear out
Judge DAILY in his charge the jury, sad These pur
chascs were made between February 1871, and Feb
ruary 1872 Is claimed by plaintiff that the sales 10
xAlatf were IN fact sales made by defendants through
their agents the keepers Of lottery shops In order 10
find verdict in favor of the plaintiff against any or al
of H. SdtlS1leU tnat
the tickets on behalf OF such dtehdihtr anu th
the ticRets were sup lid by him or then Tor sale 10
agents from whom the plaintiff bought tie tickets As
the ease stands, 1t requis III order To lus! I1-
dict for the plainif that you should ma tbat a ihe
tickets for which you give verdict were furnished ny or
through the instrunentality al all lne ucIchuit,'s
.aust whom yUu ,ndcf verdict, TO the persons WHO
sold 20 the pIuiin aud that such persons acted IN sch
sales on behalf OF those defendants. II yon hhn any vi
the d fend us conducted were interested IN the Dus
mes, furnish Ichcts Ia such persons Ia sell on hr
behalf You may nd verdict against those delriid's
nor det ,y t hat he efnd1nis or the
agents sod lottery leScts TO painful " arsn s..
are ci,cums.antial cvid nee tIat sicn - re
case, and fiom which he ashs inc Ja'S 10
draw the inference iDat sucI Wa tno ' U.s.
Tie evidence to who furnished these TICKETS ioi se
AMI the terms which tiey were iurnisneu anu u"
directly To plaintiff. is weak AMI ynsue Bnt II y ~
sufficient SUI port legal inference, IL Is the duty "i he
Court leave the drawing at tat inference 10 vac JS
Tne evdcce in this case il that each ticket has lflei
on it, face the Of Summons & Coz purpnibA- uAt
the ticket was issued by under tine auth0HS oi a
person or tigm named. We have the iact th"t
| some az these uckcts uihi 1't'n' -"
The same naue Summons Co.. also iha name al We he
PENDANT. J. H. Adams We have a.sD the declaration OF
Zachaidh r. Simmons to the palntlh III Api or M'N
1871 that he was boss of tne lotteries, ana Wodlu
reward me plaintiff ho informed niin OF any counter
eting of lottery tickets Tne cyl len &c IN thlH case Is I'M
contradictd therefore you - take the acts ana say
whether ia your mind thcy are established iie ih"nt
clai,ucd il SOL 90. double the amount cdliheu ~
| have been expended for lOttcr tickets
Eight requests upon which 10 "haise the jury W''c
baudel 10 the Judge who declined TO 'barge eNcep ~,
frer with a modification the irst-all u.0h e' uii'"l
points Al 30 D. the jury retired, ana ticcild -
afsTVari Judge DAY directed TIE luls 10
nrinc IN "A sealed verdict GU Monday and ADJOURNED '
COuri. -, r.,
H,ury L. Clinton and william b. Putnev appeared Tor
the Plaintiff John Graham, George owen ala William
ID, Hlnuen Iur lLc dcfcndan