, 1874-04-10
Of card, Tho oyidonce III thlH caso
shows TINT In noarly. NIL tic, casoH Of

nlla il3cd tho price, and tint their only e3pocta-
11 ae on or sng
expired. Some Of thcm NY y-l}onsloy, ! tl'lnk-
| IT 1s ADsunD
TO auppoao that thoy intended to dollvor, unless r
Intended to dcllyor II they could BRONX Ohautior,
or prevent hiB "cornerh from eliminating, al
tho jockey may intend to walk his own ,llorHe
oyer the course after ho has posonod Or lamol
doliyor. II Ohandlor succeeded. THUS utrug-
| glo inevitably os,sued botwoou Chandler and tho
Aoldoss OF this innonse amount Of - rute = and
"options,h Ohnnllor alono Oh ono sido attompt-
Ing to bold up tho price, mid all tho roHt .colluH
to put it dawn. The faot that tho Hollors OF
"options " and holders Of "putB" wore ablo to
got resolutions through the, Doara Of
Trade making noT asrn 9as a
| performance OF those contracts, shows tho in-
| te,,sity Of tho contrast md tho oyorwlol1nsng
J Influences with which Chandler had to contend,
do not mean to 10 understood a. saying that
III to aroato MI overwhelming opposition, n1akoa
tho transaction auy moro or loss wager tbau il
lie Ind ouly sold QUO "put, but It shows
THE NoTonlEGY or.1nE WHOLE rlsocEEp1Nos:.
intorost Of tho holaer Of tho "put'' is to break
down tho price, md TINT o. tho Holler to man-
tain 1t. Tho number engagod in this tratlHac-
tiou, and tho quantities involved, demonstrate
u
liycrei. Chanilor oxpoctodto hold up tho price,
in which event no grain wonld 10 oiIored lin,
| and the other parties must havo known they
could not yet tho grain to deliver unleRs thoy
first broko, Chandler, and ,thon although they
| might tondor, Ao coula not rocoiyo, 80 that IN
| payment no actual delivery was anticipated.
| They nlado their tenders only aB a method of
establishing differences aftor he had failed, and
| WAB powerleRs.
TIE AUTHORITIES. -
Tint trnnHnct;Dub Of this kind Aro only WlgcIB
is abunluutly established by autl,oritos. (Glge-
! wood W. nlain, Il Conn, Detch, 53s; Drllco's
Appeal, Is ponu.. st., DDS; kirkpatrick vi. Bon
par, pario Msadan, Doa., i. 1 j., oM; Gspard ".
iIinnlRn, Dusworth, 2l1.1 1t iH true those
casos arose under atatutes making such trnns-
actionH void NJ gaming contracts, But the test
applied WIS: Did tho parties tntc1id to soil on
purported to DO tho subject matter Of tho trans
notion, or did they only intond to adjust tho
differences? Aud % 1t was found that they only
meant differences whom thoy aata sharos, tho
contracts wero holl to be essentially gambling
Gontrauts, and therefore void.
CONTRARY TO PUBLIC roL1Oy.
It Is sast however, TINT thoro il no statute IN
this State expressly prohibiting contracts Of this
and, III the Supreme Court Of this State has do
cited that wagors aro not necessarily void,
therefore, these contracts-not beiag inhibited
by any express Inv Of this S&ate---aro not void.
.Thoro is no dispute that contractB q wager aro
valid OF common law, nnlcss Affected with SONG
special case OF insalidity. (lali VI. Gilbert, IL
Nlet., s07.) But wagers which aro contrary to
public policy have always hecn held in the courts
to DO essentially void, without statutory prohbi~
tion, and cannot 10 made the ground OF au ac-
tion. (iIartloy W. Rico, 10 East, a2.) Aud q
high authority III tho profession has stated tho
law on tho subject of tho validity Of Wagors
with groat force and cearnoss, When he says:
As tho moral eenso Of the present day regards sN
rtFrrf
interests OF tho community, aud at VarsAnce WITH tho
lavs Of morality, tho exception necessarily tends to
Indeed, my ono rising from full examination
OF tho law applicable to tyagcrs, as expoundea BY
tho courts, would undoubtedly testify tint while
lo has found in tho books, and especially among
tho older toxt~wrltorH and cascs, general ex-
proBsions to tho effect that wagors woro w lid at
common law, no has found tho cases, when thoy
have beon enforced, to ho extremely raro, aud
tIo courts hnyo boon astute to find rcuaonH for
not enforcing thou'.
DECISIONS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT.
Following this gonornl c,ltront Of authority,
the Supreme Court Of this State, under tho stat
ute prohibiting gaming, has decided TINT wagors
UPON horae-laces are void, aud cannot be eu-
forced, and TINT money paid on atich wnEols can
Language Of tho Illinois statute Oh WHICH theso
decisions aro based ia, in substance, that all
promises made iu pursuance Of arrangements,
etc., where Lhe consideration Or any part thereof
sI'all DO money won by gaming, otc., shall 30
uoid. ..
Tho 1anguago Of and Yict., on which tho
GaSeWoud V. Dtan and other English caBob were
decided, ia: 'All contracts or agreements Whit
ever, by parol or in writing, BY 1ay Of gaming
or wagering, Hlall bo null and void" Tho pro-
ciso question mado in this case has noyor been
before tho Supreme Court Of this Stato to my
knowledge, aud nm not aware that it has over
bcen raised. At tho Circuit bar in q lnto caso
before His Honor Judge Tree, Of this city, ho
INIT ffr }YlJ
tho plrtioa intondod only to pay the differences
aud not to doliver tho grain. were void, nswagor
ing contracts" quote him as reported III tho
duly papers Of this city. But it hardly soems
the Illinois statute in The gltof tho oxpositionB
alrealy made by our courts aud Of tho English
DECISIONS upon statute 10 substantially similar
could hesitate to pronounco these contracts
wagers, aud void ia contrary to the atntute,
TIE COMMON LAW.
but even II mt within the letter or spirit Of
tho statute Of this State, tho common law au-
thorites quoted show That al wagore contrary
any statute. And, as tho contracts under con-
sideration aro essentially nothing but bets upon
tho price OF oats III this market within tho timo
limisod, md ns it ia obvious tlat tho effect OF
such transactions is to bogot wild speoulntiong,
to dorango prices. to make prices artiicially high
or low III the interests, strength, and skill of
tho n,anpulatorH Hlnli dictate, thereby tending
10 destroy hoalthy business and unsottlo lositi-
mute commerce. thare can bo no doubt OF tho - -
INJURIOUS TrNDEnoY or SUCH CONTRACTS,
and that they should bo held void against pub
| lie policy. As ia most cogontly Hnid by the
learned Judge who delivered tho opinion III the
cases cited from Is Penn.:
Anything which Induces men to risk tAoir money or
procrty without my other hupo Ut rotlru than yet
| for nothing any given amount from another Is
gambling, aad demoralzes the community, uo mater
| by what uanle 1t may be Gu lied. -...
Tho financial disaster and ruin which followed
Il I,]ncfs 1riilny Ill NoW York and the Bcnrnetv