The New York herald., 1876-11-03
THE COURTS.
A Big Bonanza and It's Manipu-
latory Managers.
Alleged Frauds in the Lot
terry Business.
REVENUES OF RECEIVERS

Al big bonanza was formerly the lottery business in
this city, that is to say its ramcations from this the
great metropolitan suit has been Instituted
by Marcus ciciro Stanly against Benjamin Wood and
Others which, assuming the allegations the complaint
TO be true throws interesting light the SUBJ
ject OF It's management Mr. Stanly states that from
the lst OF November 1865 TO the 18th OF July, 1862
hs owned certain share of the lotteries under the
nominal management OF c. H. Murray X Co. The re-
the shares he says owned by Benjamin
Wood. Jacob Bnnch and John A. Norris present
ager OF the Louisville lotteries Charles Murray John
Anderson, William France James Stewart, Isaac Bern
stcin John McCool Francis King, Henry Cotton Mar.
Gus A. Lnteil, Frank Work and the executors and
ministrators OF Reuben Parsons, Benjamin 5. Hasey
and James s. Watson He says further that the grants
franchises comprise various lotteries in Missouri,
Kentucky, Delaware Georgia, Louisiana and other
States the specific Of which given that such
franchises were lawful property in such States that
they we're licensed by the United States government,
and that they were conducted in manner consistent
with sound policy and public morality. 1t is alleged,
IN addition, by Mr.. Stanly that during the time he
VAS interested in the aforesaid lottery business
Benjamin Wood, Banch. Morris. Murray France and
Cotton conspred dclraud the sharehold-
srs, and appropriated to their the weekly
profits OF 81 34 o. OF which Wood received S4G0
and The other conspirators the remainder that they
appropriated altogether s2e $780, of which 81 400
his rghtful SHARE that he knew nothing OF the fraud
until he discovered II last year; thai he
received from Murray, France and Cotton
satisfaction tor tho sums they appropriated
but that Wood, Banch and Morris utterly refuse
iopay him anything, and that as be cannot get The
Diher parties named coplaintis he made them
party defendants in the suit Mr. Stanly has brought
two SUITS the statements above being those embodied
IN the FIRST action. In the complaint IN the second
suit he charges Benjamin Wood with having been the
principal manager OF the lotteries named the agent
and trustee of The other parties, with having had
preme control oil the receipts and disbursements and
with having iraudulcntly enbczzled and converted to
his own use SCI, COO OF which sum Mr S,anly CLAIMS
that he himself eni lled 81 800. Precisely SINH
lar answers are made TO both complaints All the alle
cations in each complaint denied then follows the
statement on information and belief that The manage
meut and the conducting OF the lottery business II
there was any money made in It confined TO this
State and other States where the business is unlawful
and that profits accrued in the States where the lot
teres authorized The Statute OF Limitations
q nual defence.
Before Judge Larremorc, holding Supreme Court,
Chambers, motion was made yesterday by cx.Re-
corder Smith on behalf OF the defendants for the
framing OF issues To be tricu before Jury TO
whether Mr. Stany copartner in the lottery
business in question. and in what States tho money
the business had been made. Messrs. Townsend and
Weed counsel for Mr. Stanly, insisted that the case
was one which should be heard before referee Mr..
Smith declared that there could be -eierec be-
rnuse tho question OF fraud raised The reply 10
this that Mr. Smith had specified any such
charge IN his proposed issues The reply OF Mr. Smh
that he believed he had overlooked II: whcreupon
Judge Larremore said lie had better get his papers
straight before he came into court and thereupon ad
journed tho further hearing until next Wednesday.
SURROGATE CALVIN AS A REFEREE.
Francis Morgan and orestes Grant brought separate
suits against William ~ T~ eed, Jr receiver of the
Commonwealth Fire Insurance Company, the suits
growing out OF policies OF insurance taken in this
company. The referred to Mr. Dolano C.
Calvin. II Is conceded that therc hearings
before Mr. Calvin, but some twenty adJournmenta
The main point is that Mr. Calvin allowed sixty days.
the time by talatc for referees to make their
reports after finishing the testimony to pass without
making any report Tho attention Of tho Court was
called 10 the matter ami udge wcslbrook was then
holding supreme Court Chambers, ordered the matter
10 be referred again TO Mr. CALVIN but with q speciGca
tion in The order that the taken In the
reference should be accepted rs ev dence in this
one There WAS no testimony however, taken the last
ease the evidence having been exhausted u former
reference. Mr. CALVIN recently announced that his
report was ready, but without stating its purport
rLaieed 500 Tor his Ices. A motion yesler-
day ty Mr.. 5 ;. Lancaster, before Judge Larremore
holding Supreme Court, Chambers. have the
lees taxed by the Court Ho claimed
that Mr. Calvin not entitled any fees
The nrst reference through ailurc TO make hls
report within the time prescribed by Law and that h.,
ccrtalnly not entitled any ices in the second
case as no evidence was taken. Mr. Minor,
affidavit OF the latter detailing tho amount
OF testimony taken, which declared to be- very
SOiunlHuur, ana the lact tlat none uI the adjourn
mcnts we're al his Instance. The surrogate further
explained how the matter be referred back to
han ami nis assumption chat lie was acting under the
hist order and unuar an extension OF granted bv
the touft lie Iurther says that his ofciaI duties as
have his attention that he WAS
unable To make report sooner Mr. Lancaster thou ugnt
that hoidn. Office Tor non com pIlancc
with 'he statute 10 time makin his rc,ort Judge
Lnrrrmore directed counsel to tender Mr. Calvin such
lee no thought he entitled TO- and IN case O, his
Don- cccptancc OF The to come into court again
and Le would tax the lees.