The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-01-22
BROKER SEWELL'S EXPULSION.
TRIAL OF HIS INJUNCTION SUIT AGAINST THE
STOCK ExcHANeE-THE KNoTTY QUESTION IN

TRIAL OF HIS INJUNCTION SUIT AGAINST THE
STOCK ExcHANaE-THE KNoTTY QUESTION IN
voLvED.
The suit brought by Arthur L. sewell. one of the
former partners OF John Bonner Il Co., against
Brayton Ives president of the Stock Exchange. and
the Stock Exchange tried yesterday before Judge
Sedgwck, in tho Superior Court, Special Term. The
action, as will be remembered, was recently insti
tuted by Mr.. Sewell to his reinstatement
member of the Exchange. he having been. as he al
leges illegally expelled by the Governing Committee
on charge Of obvious frauds. Mr.. Sewell also asked
for an Injunction restraining Mr. Ives and his agents
interfering with his free ingress to and egress
from the Exchange for business purposes. and also
for the protection of his property interests therein
which are valuable to him. On the trial yesterday
Mr.. sewell represented by General Roger A.
Pryor. the Stock Exchange by Mr.. Robert sewell and
Mr.. ParIney. The evidence taken mostly docu-
mentary. The plaintiff, however. was placed on the
stand and told plain story of his connection with
we nr OK hi'n anu stating tbat Il
was only week before the crash" that he became
aware OF the actual condition OF his partners bust
ness, and stunned by the knowledge that he
did not know what to do He cmphatically denied
any completely in his partners peculiar transaction
and, like every else the street ut the time
thought the stock OF the Bankers aud Brokers' Asso
citation to be worth ITO ut least. On behalf of the
Exchange documentary proof OF the expulsion OF Mr.
put IN evidence.
SUMMING UP.
Counsel each side then began lengthy and
elaborate argument on the many intricate law qucs-
tons involved Mr. Robert Sewcll, counsel for the
Stock Exchange commended that under the bylaws Of
the Exchange, which were signed by every member,
1t agreed and understood that the decision all
disputed points was left entirely TO the Governing
Committee. from which decision there was no APP
peal.
Mr. Parmley, in speaking Of the merits of tho con-
viction, said that although Mr. Scweu had not been
an actual participant in the frauds Of Bonner Co.
he was guilty Of such apparent gross negligence As
would render him anenablo to the charge OF "obvi-
Gus fraud" contemplated by the bylaws.
General Roger A. Pryor behalf OF Mr. Sewell, con-
tended that membership was property and member
in regular standing tenant ia common Of all tho
property Of the association which was enormous and
entitled its dissolution to his distributive share
He also participant in the insurance fund. IL,
therefore, member in regular standing had these
additional property interests. suspended member
retained all these rights except the right to go into
the mart to do business. II. said he Mr. Scwcll has
not been lawfully expelled ho is still member in
good standing and such entitled to all the rights
OF full membership. The Exchange could make no
bylaws which would render IL above the control of
the common law provided to protect every man s
rights, and bylaw which expelled member merely
bccauso he appealed to court of equity for protec-
ton in direct violation OF natural justice.
General Pryor quoted numerous English and
yolvcd. and in conclusion asked the Court to define
his clients rights In the promises and to give him
those rights whatever they were.
At the conclusion of the arguments counsel handed
up their briefs and Judge Scdgwick reserved his de-
cision.