Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1879-12-19
REI0HT AND AOO0MM0DATI0N.
4 Matter OF Interest to GIaii
Dealers.
Madison Democrat.


The case Of Smith e Lightner,
of Chicago against j. II. Ronn-
tree OF Plattevillc, tried last week
before his honor, Judge Bunn,
was one of considerable import
ance, and deserved more pIoml'
nence in tho public press than II
received. The suit was brongh
torecover certaln losses incurred
by the defendant in certain specn
lations, through the plaintiff N
his broker on 'changc.
Tho testimony disclosed Il sim
ple state of facts. The deicndab
employed the Chicago firm +
make certain purchases and sa u
Of produce, including wheat, oats
corn and pork. There was n
written contract. The plaintiff
gave his ordor to buy or sell, III
having put up in the first plaza
an amount OF money sufficient L.
warrant the brokers to do his
business. In plain language, Mr..
isountree invested in options
having becn informed In advan CO
what the brokers commissions
would be. for, doing tho business.
There WAS no Testimony ELECTED
on the trial agoing to show that
the plaintiff aver .disobey ed the
defendants 4ii4str,ictions, or did.
anything detrimental to his inter-
cats. Tho defense was based up
on two propositions; first, thu
the transaction from first to last
was ~ gamblidE operation nnd con
trsry to The lava Of Illinois; and
second, that ON March II, 1870.
the defendant notified the plain
tiits that he would not invest any
more money and would not longer
hold himself responsible for loss
cd. After tho evidence was all
in, and after u very elaborate dis.
cussion by counsel, the court
rnled that the defendant had failed
TO. show any illcgality in the con.
tracts, and therefore refused to
submit to the jury any question
touching the validity of the con.
tract, and consequently tho case
tairned upon the second point OF
defense presented above.
The following are the questions
submitted I. the jury by the court
ut the conclusion OF his charge:
/. Did the defendant, On March IL,
ls79, notify the plaintiffs that hc had
no more money to put into. the bust
ness, and would not be respansibleany
longer Tor lossesY
>. At the time of giving such mo-
lice, state, If you are able to, whether
81 not there was money enough of de-
dendant's III plaintiffs hands % cover
all the LOSSES or liabilities in and on
his brhalfY
3. II You find such notice WIS CIV
en-. as mentioned in the first above
question, WAS il then and there I'm.
slerstood and agreed by and between
The plaintiffs and defendant that
from that time forward the defelpl-
ant was not to he liable for losses, and
that the plaintiffs assumed and agreed
to bear all losses that might occur In
the business transacted by them for
the defendants
4. III you find ,that such notice was
given, did the defendant, by his sub
sequent acts and conduct in directing
purchases and sales and 50 to the
management Of the property purchas-
ed for him, waive amy right he may
have acquired by reason of such no
tice?
As our readers are informed.
the jury returned verdict for the
plaintiffs for $5, 6l4.46, and gave
an answer to the above interroga,
tories as follows; 10 the first,
"ses." To the second. mo, we
are not able to state 10 the !