New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-04-14
LAW OF WALL-ST. SALES.
THE BLACK FRIDAY SUIT DISMISSED.

|
Judge Barrett in Supreme Court, Circuit,
yesterday dismissed the complaint Of De Witt c. p 'or
against Smith Gould Martin, growing out Of sale
100000 gold by Albert Speyers TO the palnlH on BLACK
| Friday The amount claimed By the planuH was the
difference between the price offered for gold by speyers
| ON the morning OF Black Friday which was
| I6O and the amount for which gold was
sold on tho same day. In tine afternoon, in the Cold
ROOM The evidence Of seyers showed that while he was
still bidding 1G0 for gold nobody listened 10 h ana
sales were being made in other parts OF the room ut 49,
Tho evidence showed that Speyers acted under tins drec
ons OF James Fisk, r and one OF the CHIEF questions
ia the suit was wnetherit being conceded that up TO
Friday the defendants had been buying gold for the rise
the defendants parties to tue transactions OF MI
Fisk on Friday. The plaintiffs evidence was NANNY
directed that question, and Judge Barrett ueciued
that there was crcumstnta evidence TO be submitted
TO jury whether Fisk, IN his Friday OIdeiS ac'ou
rs partner with the defendants.
After Jude Barrctts decision dismissng the case Mr
shcarman asked allowance Of per cent on the 'ian
The Court allowed per cent. Mr. Agernon > Sulh'Hh
and Y sewell appeared for plaintiff Thomas o. smear
man. william A. Beach, and A. j. yanderpoel for dc
PENDANTS.
The decision Of judge Barrett is as follows:
Aftor nights rejection it wouid he purely afectaon
my par 70 say tbnl 1d any oolOt ABOUT ,e ,ii W 70
the pianif to recover IN TINS SUIT or that ftqrsu 10
be fortified by any argument on The part Of The DEFEND
ante on tho proposition discussed yesterday. VITA
great reluctance have come 10 Tue conclusion ina. ~ ~
aspect OF the sec possibility, without sur
the The two points which conceive to be absolutely fatal
are first the point thi contract is not proved 10
have been Subscribed by Speyers nor hii aNfn aseEt
aud have no doubt whatever nat t4ere Is nQl one sc
tina 81 evidence IN the case even tending to SLOW mat IL
As long ~ he Sr,i,,te of Fnu, 4 on tae stituc-book3
% Our state, IL must he followed; 10 must b, respected
and the adopt lac q; policy tending io
eject or n!iiate against ian force 20 he given 20 mat
statute Ierc q, q whore the plaintiff does not
ducc any memorandum si-ned by the pafI To DC /
question but tuat De would be bound to prove tte
signature 30 the nienoraniuh To ne ~ tie H.h1wHht
saving too mrch mat when be DIES moi produce |
ms memorandum. but relics upon evidence ~ it, loss
tAa hc ong.i t. be- Hvld 10 qnle a. net nc ~ re
had the memCran un and produced ~ II Nouid ne !
cnro ard pbi.r ii Dlrt..s could come md
SAY they loss tie memorandum wHich te iaW ie
dcnce % aui subscription 10 70 to the Jury
thr gucst.cn as 10 whether II ever was su@. roed !
We .agAt well have 10 aeltutc against fraujs and /
~ +, ,ba c,a.Iiuy of whence - to a sale; 10 /
;,Nau aveislng tEat there sar, on o.h, aud au
Other person a,ermg inat ihere ~as not To put stop
memorandum, Ai-u-d hy 10" party II, - .ait ne"r
prron can come nio roa't AMI say thl be d., -. us
memorandum aut - not ble hy Ju-i rs cr'f ana con-
tiuene evidence establish Us contents anu srD-cip-
law Is ou.r,y gone aud 'la conflict Of oaih 90 oath
IL. ns DEE -c as Hgrc was no -" IN relation
Tie pits 9sh, to be lril 10 sir,tcr proof N II be
had o.. menlpI.uusn. wnrH co1d be inspected 0y /
every body ud taac. with reference 10 1, a'i,aty o
tAc --ri ms. ... a., g. ~ i H., ~ IT. ~
i'.'e, "''n '' . ~ ~ & - -. a.. o,,;fris in Es
IT, -hd Sc s''''t ~ lee ,,I ~
igan II .c had ,re ori-ri AMI produced il rr,olc you
it mot thr CUSTOM ol NJ. Ni'Y's ID sign memo
I9ada a, an. u s uuc d. bas Yu.eI o. ~ many /
iiauc,. contacts 50 ,I-l -hy ar subscribed by
mean. ~ Y.i..d -sup; s3p.'iu.t thf "t s.nt ont
on - printed '.ua. sol IN uHEy m.iencc- v'tlont
aoy eu1scly'."4 o.. s.;ia'A.t ~ az - ,.,'oh !
..Ld so Or as Sur ~p} GERS - CONGO .tl .'.' lth t'