New-York tribune., 1876-02-15

aori,a ,,,o,nt heno given To carry policy DuSi-
ness It was not necessary to have the co"po' VI ~
lottery. There such terms USED ~ horSo''
saades"" g,a,"" whips" &c. while in regular lot
tsry there were no such things The witness hau ho"
Adam Roedger the plaintiff for seven or eight years. ou'
had never heard of bis connection IN any criminal cou
plaints nth iolioy voDdofs
Thl. line Of examination was Objected 10 ny pn'in
council and Mr.. Graham claimed that hoen'eor wac
known to have been connected with crmina caSeS i'
Clinton retortod that II airy attempt was inado 10 s
concerning tho NE OF hs client no could probably reca
v ,n.t,,ce. Ia proye that the defendants had been
connected with many damaging crlmlhm of'c'' anu "
bccn Guilty of many STATE Prison ohenses
Tho witness In continuation said that he dd not KNOW
Of any raid made upon No. 272 BO"cfy oy 'ho Pooo "
The instance Rocdiger. The loans ana advances aue
10 omon and other persons were made Tor tie pu
pose OF getting business. The witness SPOKE oi
prlzc. I'm connection with tho business, Dut
statod that they were not prizes set up In the
I,,terv for the benefit OF any person VINO
purchased lottery policy ticket. prize Is commonly
termed hit" and the witness defined the term pJ say
ing that when person selected number when was sue
cessfuI IT was called hit" No prize was set up py
any one who sold policy ticket !" hit" was paiu
by the policy who might be other thah 'ne
manager lottery. whatever business was brought
to tho sellers they assumed tine risk and pad inc Nus
10 was the risk seller OF the policy with the pur
chaser which they took The business at NO 2|Z bO"eiy
had relation with any other persons except 'hose "o
transacted business thoc In reference to tho destruction
Of rapcr. and momorauda, tho witness said that some
were destroyed every day. others at the end OF 'nc
MONTH and it would impossible for him to produce the
rs .ords Of No. 272 Bowery OF the business done
between February aud June, l5H' TIC u'u
not know whether not they could bc produced INC
schedules were destroyed and all tho transactions were
closed up.
The witness testified that Mr. Clute was a middleman'
and did business at No. Paikrow, No. 2O6 broadway
aud No. lob Fulton at. Mr. Luther In barclay ana
Grconwich-ss Mr.. Bailey Mt No III broadway Boom
n CARPENTER No. 176 Broadway. and "ilham 'r"it
we're also mddcmen. lie had heard that the reuioVai
of the bus meas from No. 20i to No 2'% bOWeiy Was
occasIoned by legal but he was not principal OF
witness In The case lie went to No 272 BoweIy with
the business IN connection with others In the same bdsi
ness and formed an association to break down Simmons
4 Co, but tie business only lived six weeks
LONG EXPERIENCE IN TIE BUSINESS.
On the redirect examination by Mr. Clinton the wilt
ness said that Mr. Balch and Sir Franz called upon MN
at the Hoffman House aud asked him To recognize bauch
a.. interested tho business. Io said he would not
recognize Bauch. aud thought ho told him no did not
recognizes any bat Simmons This was IN The Latter
part OF 1869 or carly part OF 1870. The witness cor
reccd his testimony he had seen Mr. Eiuch WHO
told him ho mistaken in regard to the dAtc Inc
asaed the witness why he sdid mat 'he'ter anu
william L. Simmons thr only persons no had seen
lack OF memory lie coftan that this demand from
Mr. Hanch ior recognition af,cr he tthe witne9s)
had turned over tho business at No ~ Bo"ery TO
siinmons lie could not remember what year this was
i'm: thought IL wls early 1870. but could not swear
uorty,ly whether il was 1870, ISL 1872 Ilo Lad
heard that Bauch had sod Ot MS interest Io said that
Banch claimed he hai inersi but did not state what
IL was M The witness understood 1t ia the business
at No ~ Bgwrry. Tnis all he cou,d say hat
l}auch said. All he replied was that he would not re oS
ME him He could not say that lac told Bch he would
only recognize simmons lie would nos swear pos
lively whether or ths conversation occurred on the
ID OF june or in the month o. June. ISL could he
swear IL was not In the month Of MAY, 1874.
Josiah H. Adams mad Office at 40 % Liberty-st. but
the witno,s did not know who rented the room or VINO
paid the rent. The lottery pocy business "f No ~
Bowcy depended upon the drawngs OF lotteries. The
Winnings wc., pad according 10 tie drawings of lot
t.l.cs Their could hs GnI had bc'n c1sos IN dealing
with mudlcincn there were no losses Loans were
made t. ui !iencA and lolicyshop men t. carry on
business and pay cnscs and s-e' aud advances were
made 10 nt Tho witucs's know lcd-c ~ the bus
nss has been acquired past 30 years. o had sold
lottery tickets for over - yraIs, which gave him
an idea OF lOttc.y policy business In THIS
city. In l-JG or 1897 b. was connected with The
ta,i.y husiu,.,., aah WIS "bachcl" or midd!cmau.
~. conducted both lotcry and policy business a. the
,.ilo time and place. Tho policy business then De
rrn cd u,n drawings OF lOtftiits and always had d
p,nic,i npon t4-.n. lie know that T. T. simmons was
CONNIE. ted with the lottery husiats- 1901. lie had no
-7 aud asllng he profit, ~ business were at No.
~ Bswery. Tho wituess Thought ne made allowance
OF Crr.n pcIcrnia,c to ht rmrn IN = low Instances
Of funds To pay rent and expenses.
Barr concluded Lis testimony at 1870 p m, and the
court ADJOURNED.