New-York tribune., 1876-02-17
THE LOTTERY MANAGERS.

PROGRESS OF THE ROEDIGER SUIT.
TEsTIMoNY OF TH1 PLAINTIFF-HIs INVESTMENTS
IN BLIND PLAYS INDICATIONS THAT THE
LOTTERY MEN SWINDLED EACH OTHER.
The suit against the lottery policy dealers 10y
Adam IlOoslser resumed yesterday morning before
the Court OF Common Pleas. Tho rt delayed
until nearly - o'clock. ing to tie absence Of Of
Z, Jurors and threatened with further delay
Of the absence Of OF the witnesses for the
prosecution. 1t finally agreed by counsel that tho
plainii n. Adam Rocdiecr should be placed upon the
sald Identify tie lottery tickets blind plays and
open policy slips" Tic envelopes inclosing the blind
plays exhibited oycr-lb .ndance Of soilin g-wax
placed chem BY Roeiiger, to prevent tho opening OF
the envelope and the mani ulltiOn Of the cOneuts by
the managers which lie suspected they plao-
ticed. This precau.ion is not taken except
by the most astuto players The day
almost entirely occupied with tho cXamnai IA o,
tho exhibits" known "bind plays, and the charao-
tcrS upon them. which were Interpreted ~ indicating
"sadd.es"" gigs"" horses" &c The witness gave the
amounts paid upon them. Tho number Of " blind plays"
Go. amounting 10 tho sum total Of 81 ,G93 TO- and
rang from - 10 $50 10 each. SOmo Of the envelopes
inoosd in Ones which The witness could not
account for Ho said that the blinds" bore his own
marks, and deposited in envelope ami sealed.
aud tho envelope written upon by the clerk when he ur
ciss the ticActs The marks upon the outer envelope
were not recognized by him. and the theory counsel
was tat the nDeI envelope bore figures OF larger
denomination than the one, the envelope
put on b. tie policy dealers IN oror 20 defrlui the
ayers of portion OF the paid by the purchaser OF the
ticket The witness tesn d TO purchasing the ticses
Of Bailey Co.. at No IA Broadway: Ciute, at No. 200
broadway; and T.. r. Luthey, AZ No. 65 Barclay-st.
They wore purchased between June and December.
1871.
After the proving OF the "bnds." Wm. L. Simmons
asked 10 them. make OF them. which he
tn. "a. gfr rVfs NJ Mr.
Clinton, who evid, nty determined that change
should be made in tho king. The counsel offered the
"bAds" IN evidence. THIS objected u by Mr. Ora.
ham, who submitted that tic blind plays" were mad
missbe Justify the complaints. and said that the com.
plant shou have been brought the matter wss
fres , or within "a Years time He said that no evidence
had been received tO the exact uisoursed, At
tie witness had been nothing bat mDutapcce lor theso
papers, and there further evidence than tLese
ia es that this witness paid Jo amount OF money IN
question: anu tho point thtt these synDOll
ca. pauers could be construed lOiiciy
u.k kcs. would therefore object o them because ~
ILoy not Lottery tickets. and are no. the subject oi
r. ooytry tins action; f1 the alleged sale OF hcia -
nat with the defendants of any of thon, ~
tine sales do uot appear Lave been made IN tNe
couis so tic business Of sLe dtIodLo, Or ~ aay ot
mo m or with kIOwiedgr, approval authority, or
,lo: 90 alleged sales tansdCtonS between
ia, mdtlc.cn and other vendors and she plaintiff op
tnry arc luconpct and nadmissb.e do
icnlauls or any ol ,icn. under tho proof.
Clinton cliod 10 Willt
lO. cries, and show that parole proof might gvcA
VIII IA tcnot did not plain Itself. and when chsrb
tors were ~ eyae the laws, done In this case
H., The midst Oi the argument oi MI clinton, tho COnt
ndioufned anil III O'Clock tuis morning.
ine unscl ior the plaintiff Henry l.. Clinton and
VIM B. PGtney; for the de:endants, john Graham ana
George Owen.