Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1880-04-17

N Nerchants' its contents, :.
II NAV suffice to saw ARE the reverseof
The contents of the lost letter as
nroyed by defendant. Hartman and
k eller, and plaintiff testified that
this w as the only letter WITH which
ar in which he had ever sent defen-
daut sample contracts and the rules
and regulations of Merchants E1-.
change, and say the sample CEN
tracts, and rules and regulations pro-
duced here by defendant are the
same he sent him Oh the 9th OF june
Defendant when recalled TO reou'.
was shown the letter-prsss copy OF
the letter of 6tn June; says he never
received such letter from plalhtln'
and did not receive the sample con-
tracts at or near that date or III the
month of June, but received them
about the 1st of May, as he had tes-
lifted in chief; that the contents OF
the Ietter-press copy, are wholly un-
like those of the lost letter tina: the
lost letter as he had before testified.
was on two half-sheets; the letter.
press COPY is on tbree-half sheets.
DIR. Hartman aud Keller were both
recalled in rebultal they both con-
cur in saying, on being shown tne
letter-press copy, that the contents
of that copy are nothing like the con.
tents of the lost letter, and 1T Is not
a copy of that letter; that 1T was not
in June when they saw the letter, put
about the last OF April or lst OF May.
Now comes the question, on which
| .ide of this issue does the evidence
prepouderate With which party Is
the weight of evidence?
The parties, Alexander and Harri-
son, stand before the court as VIII.
nesses, entitled to equal credit, for all
they may testify, as of their own
knowledge, aud being parties IN lr-
terest they are OH All equal footing,
and can find no preference OF tho
evidence of one over the other
grounded on their manner OF giving
testimony the other two witnesses,
DR.. Hartman and Keller, are dlsln-
lerested witnesses, having no interest
in the matters involved III this salt.
The fact that the plaintiff wrote the
letter of the 9th June, aud sent with
il the sample contracts aud the rules
and regulations of Merchants Ex-
: change of st. Louis, rests solely on
) plaintiffs testimony, only as his
/ sworn statement is presumptlvely
+ supported by the letter-press copy,
torn from the book without proauc-
s Ing the book itself, and all the facts
: connected with this issue depend for
I the credit to be given them substan-
t TALLY on -plainliff's own evidence.
e On The other side, defendant, Hart
man and Keller concur in giving al
t. firmative and full evidence In respect
!: to the lest letter and other facts
g connected with it, and give their evil
g dence in terms to require me to be-
l. lieve that they testified the trutE or
+, they swore falsely and corruptly.
9 There is nothing in the outside facts,
It OF iacts in confederation that can
It Justify the court iu conclusion that
l. they have swern falsely; with this
v view OF the evidence on this point OF
It conflict in the evidence, but one re.
# suit can follow three witnesses OF
9. equal credit against one, the weight
+. of evidence is with the defendant,
,e and the court must fud on this issue
d raised by the evidence for defendant
Of And so tiuding, it follows from whsi
ii has already been said, that this e0n
,e tract and understanding between
"a plaintiff and defendant, the PARTED
m not haviug intended or contemplated
at that there should be an actual pur
he chase and delivery of wheat, but
IN mere accounting for and settlement
Mt of the differences between tho cor
tract and the market price, was lille
"A gal and void.
a. AS this conclusion disposes Of tn
ST case and constrains finding for dc
Ie- fendaut, 1 might here close all ths
he seems to be- necessary to be said, an
ei, [ would be glad to do so, as " WI
OH afford lac no pleasure to pass on IN
or rules aud regulations of trade, as q
he tablished by the merchants OF 3
yla Louis, the great mart aud metroPol
,25 of the state, but instructions 81
mt asked, which the parties have rigt
ut 10 require me to pass OH. therefof
ks proceed to notice question, invol'
in, ug u consideration Of some OF tn
n,, rules anu regulations Of the Me
,rt chants Exchange of st. LOUIS
ess L; will be seen from what l. hav
led already said that plaintiff is con
isission merchant, doing business
ID st. Louis ,and as such was buying Al
is selling grain for defendant; was
of member of the Exchange, and IN a.
ict ing business for defendant was ectit
Iuy under aud in conformity to the rul
of aud regulations of the Merchant
yht Exchange. In giving his evidence
ese also states that all the gram
The bought for defendant was bought I
Gs members of the Exchange, and all
to sold was sold to members OF the T.
of change, and all the parties sellers a,
M. buyers were bound to cOnfOrm
me those rules. And it will be'remei
We brred that when he sent the scamp
less contracts anu rules and regqlatio
his to defendant, he wrote defendant tn
th. ne sent them that he might sec wi
EN- he was bound 10 do, and how he d
t is his business. These regulations til
was brought to defendants knowledge
,ar: binding plaintiff in respect to pl
all. chases and sales he made or mig
was make for defendant, connects I
usi- feudant with them although not
N, h member of the Exchange. The ga
Win pie contracts sent defendant conts
the the express provision "Thls &C
.n,l- tract is subject, in all respects, to
,teu rules and regulations of the Nj
for chants Exchange of the city Of
oiut Louis" Plaintiff testified, that
ce Is the contracts he made for the p
4 be chase of wheat for defendant c.
ear tanned this provision. 9n .iozi
to, These sample contractssI hi
xisl- already copied aud it is not peces
nee !: ry here to copy them again.
cn " The contract is, in q. substance,
lhe contract for the purchase and sale
re- wheat at fixed price per bushel.
says be delivered at sellers option dur
ana July in regular elevators, aud m
cor on its face subjec. to rules and re
iate, lations of Merchants Exchange.
tht ,' 1t is unquestionably a legal
!. valid contract unless there is in
'oa 80 rules and regulations something
" ,'ena sat affect its legality and validity. w
~ 49, the mouth of July arrived the sc
,ha, sn might, on any day OF the month,
sna sna' der the wheat sold and demand
con- price, or the buyer at the eud Of j
: uia on full maturity of the time for
en no, VI livery, tender the price and dem
:, "Iu the delievery Of the wheat. Eli
u. IL party falling to comply with cont
uIlo'. ,,'n can be sued at law and made te
10 spond IN damages. '-aGas oi
,te,I SO that we are left to bexsmine
nroof rules and regulations and see If
that contain any vice that win affect
tho contract otherwise legal and pro
N re-. have already copied these RI
,nJ IL 10 onlv naceaaarv tn nr