Year: 1875

Tho operations gold or Jay Gould and the late James
Fisk Jr on what Is known as "Black Friday" stil
continue TO the subject Of litigation In the courts
In addition to the numerous suits now pending grow


ing out Of the operations OF that memorable Friday,
new suit has been commenced in Supreme Court In
this city by Messrs Sullivan Kobbe and Fowler as at
torneys for John A. Mcpherson. Mr. MCPHERSON sues
as the representative OF Isaac o. Davis 4 Co. and in
his complaint includes defendants Jay Gould Henry
" Smith, Henry " Martin and James B. Bache. In
the complaint it is charged first cause OF action
that on about the Esd OF September 1865, plaintiff
as partner in the arm Of Isaac 0. Davis Co nIr.
Davis being deceased agreed with the defendants
through Albert speyers deliver to them by twelve
O'Clock on the following day, $25 600 gold coin
that At the time agreed upon plaintiff was ready
10 deliver the gold but Il was refused by
and speyers TO receive and pay for such gold plain tin
was damaged TO the extent OF So 437 50 As second
time plaintiff further agreed with defendants to deliver
them the following day $40 COO in gold COM that
they ready at the time agreed TO deliver the gold,
but defendants refused 10 accept thereby damaging
plaintiff the extent OF 81 o75 AS third Of
II Is alleged that the oath OF September 1862
plaintiff agreed with defendants 10 deliver TO them on
The following day the OF $1,000 IN gold coin,
which plaintiff was prepared TO deliver as agreed but
which defendants refused to accept and that by such
nonacccptance plaintiff sustained damage IN the sum OF
SIS, 500 BY reason Of defendants falling TO accept the
gold thus contracted for under the three agreements
named plaintiff claims 20 have been dam
aged in the gross amount OF $20,0l2 So for
which sum he asks judgment against the
defendants To this complaint and similar
made in another suit in the OF Robert Il
Thompson, in a growing out of "Back Friday"
operations, Jay Gould through his attorneys Messrs
Shearman and Sterling, makes answer that II any
such contract ever made II was made to be per.
formed a future day, and AT the time of entering
into such contract the intention Of the plain
t actually TO sell or deliver any gold other coin OF
any kind to the defendants or TO person whatever
nor the intention OF the defendants, any of
Them Of any person dealing with plaintiff, that de-
PENDANTS any of them should actually pay to plain
tif the currency price Of such gold other coin,
any part thereof which facts at the time OF such
pretended contract well known to all the parties there
10 but on the contrary II was the mutual design and
intention OF all the parties thereto that the said pre-
tended should be specifically actually
performed whole in part and that nothing should
be done under the same except that at the
time fixed for its performance the difference be-
tween the market value at that time of
gold coin should be paid by one party to the other
fun satisfaction OF such pretended contract and instead
of any literal performance thereof; that the market
price Of gold coin currency for the day upon which the
said pretended contract to mature was at the time
OF the making of the said pretended contract an un-
known and contingent event and chance and the said
pretended contract not actual bargain and
ment for the sale Of any gold other ccin but


bet and such future market price of gold
coin and the chance event OF rise fall in such
future price aud gambling transaction; that
the rartics to the said pretended contract intended
thereby evade and violate the against betting
and gaming and the said pretended contract was and
was intended TO be by the parties thereto evasion OF
The said statute and contrary thereto.