The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-12-24
ARTHUR SEWELLS PETITION.


AN INJUNCTION ASKED FOR AGAINST THE PREsr-
DENT OF THE STOCK ExCHANGE--THE LEGAL
IrY OF sEwELL's EXPULSION QUESTIONED
ARGUsz1y BaroR1 JUDGE FREEDMAN yEsTER
DAY.
Since the failure Of John Bonner Co.. which OF
Cured nearly year ago. Mr. Arthur l.. Sewcll. the
junior member of the insolvent iirm has been max
ing ruitless efforts to be reinstated to membership
in the Stock Exchange. he having been expelled
shortly after the failure and flight of his senior part
ncr. All Mr. Sewells efforts in this direction have
been pressed with unremtting energy. and. after
having tried every other known mearI. he has ct
las. been obliged to resort to the remedy
in the premises.
The suit just brought is entitled arthur L.
sewell Brayton Ives, as President o1 the New
York Stock Exchange. and others and the object u
the action restrain the defendant from interior
ing with Mr.. Scwells entry to and egress from
the Stock Exchange. of which he still claims to be Q
member, and also for the protection Of his pro-
prctary rights in the association In his complaint
he sets forth that for eleven prior to the failure
of his firm he was a member Of the Stock Exchange.
and that the defendant Mr. Ives. is president Of the
association. which counts 1000 members. He
says that brokers' business is vaueless unless free
alniss on to this exchange mart is af-
forded him. as the transactions of buying and selling
stocks nd dealing In other securities alone bs
carried on by member Of the Stock Exchange. Re
then goes on to say that the club association ID
possessed Of valuable property which as ne alleges
the Exchange he fixes ut $1,000 and the value of thu
insurance fund of the association is worth to him,
he further claims, $4,000. He complains that
the 18th January last the association undertook to
expei him and deprive him OF his rights and property
in the mart, which cost him $1,000, and which il alb
solutcy essential to the discharge Of his business
stock broker Not relishing this state OF aairs on
to be his rights aud attempted to enter the building.
| He says admitance was refused him, and nov. be-
cause he cannot obtain compensation in damages
and because he cannot force his way into the mart to
carry his business, he claims to be entitled to an
Injunction.
| NOT LEGALLY ExpELLED.
Attached TO the complaint--thc substance OF which
Is given aboyeia affidavit made by Mr.. Scwcll, in
| which he claims that the action OF the Governing
Committee cypclling him from the Board Is illegal.
He that the Governing Committee reported that
he was guilty of gross negligence" and therefore
the question ..Do you find Arthur scwell guilty Of
obvious fraudr being put TO the Governing Commit
tee only majority voted in the affirmative. where
upon the chairman of the committee said Mr.. sewell
acquitted Of the charge. But his decision
sen ,ns and ws ~ 'ofy
Under the twentieth article of the bylaws of the
association IL is provided that il amy member ba
! guilty Of obvious fraud, of which the Governing
Committee shall be the Judge he shall upon con.
yicton thereof. by vote Of twothirds Of the mem
bofs said committee present be expelled, and his
membership shall cscheat to the Exchange subject.
however. to the provisions OF article "a OF the
sttution regards claims of members OF the
| Exchange who are creditors of such persons" Mr..
Sewell claims that under this section his expulsion
was clearly illegal and unauthorized and therefore
void. lie says he has used every endeavor to obtain
redress. and has obtained the opinions of eminent
lawyers showing the ilegality OF his expulsion. and
asking for his reinstatenient but the committee has
prevented him from settling his debts. so that he was
Obliged to go into bankruptcy and IL therefore not
| now an active member of the Stock Exchange.
i ARGUMENT FREEDMAN.
| The matter came before Judge Freedman yesterday.
in the superior Court, an application to perpetu.
ate the injunction. Messrs. Hogcr A. Pryor and
John Il. Logan appeared tor Mr.. Sewell, and, very
curiously. Mr. Robert A. Sewcli In opposition. The
counsel for the stock Exchange claimed that IL Mr..
sewell was not expelled he was suspended. and, In
any event, had right to the relief which he de-
handed, because he had expressly bound himself
| when he became member of the Exchange la tho
bylaws, not TO take proceedings against the Board.
| General Pryor. in oppositonNnrgncd that Mr. Sow
ELL IL he was only suspended. could not be deprived
OF his property rights in the association: that his
conviction clearly Illegal and that the injunction
asked for should be granted.
Judge Freedman, after hearing the argument took
| the papers, rcserying his decision.