The New York herald., 1876-10-18
THE COURTS.
John Morrissey as Receiver in Lot
terry Litigations.
A Suit That Was Not Dill
gently Prosecuted.
The Whole Matter Sent Out
of Court.

II Is not very long ago when the policy business In
this city assumed proportions OF large magnitude
This was in those royal times when the policy business
stood In higher favor here than it does at present. and
when tho field OF operations embraced Tho popular
lottery companies ali tho Southern States, OF which
Kentucky central in interest. The suppostion
was and the hypothesis seems tobe well subsantiated
BY subsequent proceedings In the courts that the con
troll OF business afforded very profits to tho
chief managers having their headquarters in this city
As is likely happen in any business arrangements
dispute however, 1t appears, arose TO tho division
Of tho profits which led to litigation and TO pretty
full tation Of tho facts In the courts Prominent
in the series OF iitigations was a suit brought
by Henry Cotton against John Morrisscy. This
suit was set down Tor trial yesterday IN Supreme
Court Circuit before Judge Donohue. Tho appear
OF tho suit tho calendar excited great curiosity
In tho minds Of many its nature, the supposton
Of good many being that it was suit growing either
out of gambling political Transactions in which joint
associations Mr.. Morrissey has during the past few
years been largely engaged. 1t turned out. however,
70 be suit following tho appointment by Judge Bar
aard 1862 OF Mr. Morrlssey Of tho lottery
business OF G. II. Murray & Co. Tho compliant sets
gorth that the plaintiff for the benefit ot all other
parties who will In and contribute toward
pensc OF the action ana then goes 10 state that
tho 18th day Of December 1869, Morrisscy Was up
pointed receiver the estate and business OF O. H.
Murray Co. and OF all the rights an1 franchises in
action brought by Zachariah Simmons against tho
painttn and other defondants that he was appointed
receiver npon tho application OF said simmons; that
horrssey accepted tho appointment aud entered
upon tho duties OF his Office receiver OF the estate
OF G. II. Murray Co that tho estate was very vau-
lbie being worth somo 5000 0OU und that he lottery
business was profitable. beng worth Tor the year pre-
reding 1860 $500 600; that tho business was divided
Into l20 shares, which plaintiff the 10Th OF De-
ccmber, 1862 owned tWeve shares; that the defend
AMI, In violation OF his trust and duty, fraudulenty
combined and conspired with Zachariah T. simmons
and Charles Murray and other dclcnunis in the aiorc
that he oncrcu all the OF the firm OF G. h.
Murray q Co. Tor salo at the lobby Of the Hoffman
House early in the morning OF the l7h OF December,
1862 without advertising tho sale, without public
notice and without notice 10 the plaintn, and be-
lorc the summons in saId action had been served on
his PLAINTIFF VINO OF the defendants IN the
lion III which MOrrlsscy had been appointed receiver;
that the property and business was sold 10 William L.
Simmons brother Of The plaintiff in snd action, for
S25 900; that Morrsscy failed to report offer OF
Iac TO tho Court and 10 consummatc this fraudulent
sale executed transfer OF the title the property
fC. II. Murray & Co. to tho said William J.. SIM
nous; that tho price 0! said business was grossly
naacquatc; that sone OF tho purchase money was
converted TO defendants own use; that by such sale
he property has been placed beyond the reach oI the
painun that The sale afterward declared void and
Aetcndants recevership set ASIDE wherefore he claims
Judgment for Sl00, 900 damages the ground that tho
sale TO simmons was fraudulent and Illegal.
Nj. Morrisscy, his answer first denIes generally.
In continuing, he says that he has discovered
that his appoin lment receiver void. but that
he acted III good iaith. The property sold hat
hppurtcnancc the business OF Murray Co the sale
OF Lottery tickets. or policy slips or wagers in viou-
ton OF lhe and III fraud OF the law OF this
He tho conspiracy, that plaintiff owned
twelve shares that the business Mas valuable, be-
cause the business had been conducted by Colon
ard others that ceased 10 be profitable Tho high
,st offer no got S25, 900, and he thought 1t
uuwisc to delay BY advertising lest the property
should depreciae. He reported the sale to Court
ihcrcupon order made approving IL, bat
aiterward vacated.
Messrs. H. Il. putz and Judge Emot appeared for
the plaintiff, and Messrs. II. III. Whitehead and William
A. Beach represent cd tho defendant As the
sailed brief discussion cpsused between counsel Mr.
Beach asked dismissal o The complaint ior Of
proper dgepcc IN prosecuting tho suit The PLAIN
tns counsel undertook to show that there had
been any lack OF proper diligence although conIcssing
that they ready Tor trial tnen. Their explana
llon deemed satisfactory, and Judge Douohuc
1t granted the motion dismissng the complaint