Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-05-23
LOCAL NEWS.

NJ oxt I'm pertant Decision of Justice Wylie.
GOLD spRCULATIoNs DECIDED TO HAVE NO
STANDING IN CoURT-THE WHOLE BUSINESS
DECLARED TO BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
POLICY-ThR PLAINTIFF CAN NEITHER Re.
COVER PROFITS MADE ON FORMER GOLD
sPEcULArIoNs AND REMAINING IN THE
HANDS OF THE DEFENDANTS, OR MONIES
DEPOSITED WITH THEM AS N RGIN OR COL
LATERAL SECURITY UNDER CONTRACTS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF GOLD.
In the Circuit Court this morning, Justice A.
Wylie instructed the jury in the case of Lucien
Peyton VS.. SweeDy Huyck, which has BEEN
on trial the past week; the suit being to recover
an amount OF gold, the balance claimed to be
due on account Of deposits made by said Pey-
ton, to be employed in the purchase of gold.
Gentlemen of the Jury: number OF prayers
or instructions have been presented by the
counsel for the plaintiff, as also by the coun
sci for the de tendanf, in this cause. I do
know as it is necessary that 1 should read
them all. l will read IL answer to tnose sew
erai points the instructions l have prepared
in this case.
The Court then read as follows:
LIST If the jury believe from the evidence that
| the money claimed by the plaintiff in this case
| consisted of sums advanced to the defendant
by the plaintiff as margin on contracts betw
them, whereby the plaintiff agreed to buy gold
| on time, buyers option, and OF profits made
| after settling such contracts, the plaintiff is
not entitled to recover, such contracts being
contrary to public policy and calculated to de-
| preciate the value Of the Treasury notes OF the
| United States, which are made legal tender by
acts OF Congress
| I'd II the jury believe from the evidence that
| the contract entered into between the plaintiff
| and the defendants on the 25th of February,
| 1863 was to the effect that the plaintiff should
| put up margin OF fifteen per cent. upon
| purchase OF $4,000 OF gold at thirty days, buy
| er's option, and that defendants. on their part,
| were to put up margin OF ten per cent, and
| that after settling the transaction, or selling
| the said gold as contemplated it was agreed
| that the plaintiff was in no event TO be called
| upon to make good a larger loss than the
| amount of his margin so put up and that the
| defendants, in consideration OF the margin by
| them to be put up, were to have whate yer
profit should be realized upon the transaction
| beyond ten per cent: that the margin OF fifteen
per cent. aforesaid was put up by tho said
plaintiff, and consisted Of monies then to plain
tiff's credit with defendants from the profits of
| former illegal contracts between the parties,
| but that said defendants afterwards wholly
| failed to perform their part Of the agreement,
! the plaintiff is not entitled to recover
| Sd. That If the jury believe from the evidence
that it wa understood and agreed between the
| plairtif and the defendants. that the defend
ANS should be at liberty sell to the plain Tiff
| $4,000 in gold ut the price current In New
York, buyers option at 30 days, on the terms of
| their former transaction-in case that could be
effected: and that plaintiff gave the defendants
| to understand that he preferred to make the
| purchase in this way; and in pursuance of
! such agreement the defendants did make the
| sale to plaintiff, contracted to buy the said
! $4,000 on his behalf on these terms: and that
| the margin put up by the plaintiff was lost in
| the transaction-the plaintiff not entitled 10
recover
| 4th. If the jury believe from the evidence
that the margin Of six thousand dollars put up
| by the plaintiff under the contract OF 25th Feb
ruary, 1863, or any other sum claimed by the
plaiDtaff in this cause, was on deposit with
defendants to the credit of plaintiff on the date
| aforesaid. and consisted OF profits upon prior
speculations in gold already alluded to in the
| foregoing instructions, which profits had never
been Withdrawn from deposit then the plaintiff
is not entitled to recover, whether the transac-
ton OF The 25th OF February, 1853, was lawful
| or unlawful, or the contract of that date was
| kept or violated on part OF the defendants.
5th. 1t is not material In the present cause
whether the defendants acted as brokers in the
illegal transaction already referred to or as
| principals contracting with the plaintiff; nor
| whether the gold which was the subject of
| their several contracts was to be delivered in
| New York or in the city of Washington. The
| whole business was contrary to the public
policy of the United States, and none Of the
parties are entitled to aid from court of JUS
| tice to enforce their claims against any of the
others.
9th. The first instruction asked for by the
plaintiff is granted but relevancy depends
upon the decision of the court upon other
points of law made in the case
eth. The third and fourth instructions asked
for by the plaintiff are refused. q
9Th. The plaintiffs second instruction and
all the instructions asked for by the defendants
are answered in the instructions already given.
ANDREW WYLIE.
instructions, he would add a few words.
Wagers, or bets, as they more commonly
called, were not illegal at common law, but,
On the contrary, wagers were species OF con-
tract, and money had been recovered upon
wagers in the English courts, and also in
courts In this country. 1t was true that courts
H. some of the States of the Union-Massachu-
setts,, for instance-had declared that they
would not recognize bet of any description,
because bets were contrary to public policy.
But here, in this District they had not al yanced
SO far. Wagers were here binding as aspecies
| of contract, and the parties were bound by
them, unless contrary to statute, good morals
other contracts. These same reasons which
made void a wager between parties, made veid
| any other contract between parties.
Whatever contract or whatever wager had
| the effect to make it theinterest OF one OF the
parties to a contract to take sides against the
interests of his country, was void-void by the
polity OF the law, whether there was a statute
or not. For instance: Where 1t was agreed to
pay certain sums per day as long as Boaaparte
lived-it was holden Illegal, mas much as It had
q tendency to create an interest in the plaintiff
| in the life of foreign enemy, and which in the
case of invasion might induce him to act con-
| trary to his allegiance; and likewise that the
| party suffering under such contract might be
induced to compass and encourage the horrid
practice OF assassination, in order to get rid OF
life SO burdensome tqhim. Gilbert rs. Sizes,
Is East $50.
| Apply that test to these speculations in gold.
| Here we had Treasury notes issued under the
| authority of the United States. They were
| made legal tender by the act Of Congress; and
| therefore all bets and contracts between ciu-
| zens which would have q tendency to enlist
| the feelings and interests OF any one OF the
| citizens Of this country in favor OF palnng up
| the price of gold, or in other words, depreci-
| ating the Government currency Is contrary to
| the policy Of the law, and not whether that
| contract be wager, or time contract. the
very fact that Congress passed an act making
this money legal tender was conclusive as to
the policy Of the act OF Congress on that sub.
| ject.
1t had been argued very ingenieusly and
| ably by counsel for the plaintiff that the act OF
4 Congress of Sd March, 1862, In fact sanctioned
these contracts. The act REFER ed 70 was not in
existence at the time OF this contract OF the 25th
/ OF February, and therefore could have no effect
! as regarded that contract; but that act 30 far
| were Specializing in gold. It expressly prohibi.
ted all such contracts unless they were PINT in
| certain FORM and he had no dou II that the