New-York tribune., 1895-09-13
MANNING'S SALE OF BONDS
CHARGES AT THE STOCK EXCHANGE
ABOUT THE SECURITIES.
IT rs AvERRED THAT. WHILE THE BONDS WERE
SOLD AS CLEAN" INDoRsEMENTs HAD
BEEN ERAsED-THE MANNING FAM


| BEEN ERASED-THE MANNING FAM
lily TROUBLES RECALLED
| The Governing Committee OF the Stock Ex-
change has been making strenuous efforts to
keep within itself the knowledge of the charges
against John b. Manning OF No IA Wall-st
1t Is charged against Mr. Manning that ABOUT
| four weeks ago he sold five Missouri Pacinc
Railway frst-morteage bonds. delivering them
as clean" What is known as clean oond
| is one which has never been transferred ana
hence has no Endorsements upon II. II is vir'u-
ally bond directly issued and has never peen
sold and resold Bonds which nave been In
dorsed are regarded less valuable by from
| 3 TO per cent, than the clean" bonds, since
| by means OF the Endorsements II is not always
possible TO determine whether the transfer OF
! the bonds is irregular illegal
| The name OF the person to whom Mr.. Manning
sold the Missouri Pacific bonds has not been MADE
public; In fact I is being guarded with extreme
care. for the purpose 1t is saio. Of use the more
| effective at the next meeting OF the Governing
| Committee.
| It seems that the person who bought the bonds
said to have been represented as clean" and so
| appearing. had his attention drawn 10 them and
thought that he discovered traces OF erasure. He
then examined the bonds under the microscope
ard satisfied himself by means Of expert opinion
that the bonds had been indorsed and that the
ink marks had subsequently been erased by the
application OF chemicals.
The purchaser next ascertained that the
bonds as ne tells the Governing Committee,
had been bought at an auction sale az the Real
Estate Exchange No III Broadway Mr.. Man
ming is well known To be a constant patron OF
such sales. always being on the watch for
good securities that may find their way thither
The present charges will be further considered
by the Governing Committee at its next meet
ing on September %
Francis L. Eames the president OF the Stock
Exchange. when asked about the matter yes
| terday admitted that Il was true that these
charges had been preferred against Mr. Man
ming
| ter he replied The bonds are In the hands
| OF innocent holders. ! can prove that there
were Endorsements upon them when pur-
chased them"
The charge is that the alleged erasures were
made after Mr.. Manning purchased the bonds
and before he sold them Mr. Manning has been
| a member OF the Stock Exchange since 1869. He
s one Of the largest dealers In his line tnat oi
hrEt-class bank stock and investment securltleG
on the Exchange. lie has always been the late
est buyer OF Chemical National Bank stock mold
Ing IL for some buyer who might come along TOT
some Of the choice article. Mr. Manning Is one
OF the oldest members Of the Exchange, ana IL
sixty-nve years old.
The Manning separation suit. in which Mrs
Manning and their daughter charged cruelty
against the husband and father. is matter OF
court record within little less than year
Judge Barrett in the Supreme Court on NO
ven1ber l5 1894. awarded 10 Mary Manning ammo
ny Of $500 month and $500 counsel Zee penang the
trial of the action brought by her against her
husband. John B. Manning, for separation on the
ground o. excessive cruelty. Afhdavits In the case
were made by the plaintiff the defendant and
their seven children, who were All more thah
twenty-one years old. .
Mr. and Mrs Manning were married in lsol
The alleged cruelty began al Arverne In the sum
mer OF 1892 The plaintiff said that she was beaten
nearly every day from June IS To September j. On
the latter day. she said she suffered from con-
cission Of the brain. On their return to this city
the alleged cruelty continued and on September
26 she said. her husband threa tened 10 murder
her On this date she left him, and she SAID ne
followed her TO hotels and annoyed her Her
husband at the time owned their home al NO. l5+
West Thirty-fourth-st., worth $4,000, and she
claimed that he mad other property valued at
more than s2.OoO.cO.
husband tried some time before 10 have her re-
turn 10 him. he promised 10 buy her house on
the West Side. 20 cost not less than s3o.o0O, and
that ne would also settle $4,000 year on her
He refused 70 sign the agreement, however. II
was also alleged that the defendant used the
most indecent language TO his vile IN the pres
ence NJ their children. and accused her Of mis-
conduct The mothers affdavits were supported
by those OF the children. very exact and minute
in detail 80
Mr. Manning at the time asserted that he still
loved his Wife that he willing to do any
thing possible for her comfort, and that he never
struck her. He alleged that the whole trouble
arose about two years before. when he said 10
mis- wife that the children ought 10 do something
for themselves instead OF lying around the house
reading worthless French novels He met violent
opposition from mis- wife. and then he admits that
he said some things that he should not nave said
He declared that he had asked his wife to dis
continue the suit and the disgrace. but her
only answer was: You know how to stop II;
money enough will do It,"
Lizzie Henry. a former servant in the Manning
household and jeremiah Manning. nephew
who lived in the house with the parties 10 the
suit. both sustained the testimony or Mr.. Man
ming