Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-03-26
NOT GUILTY"
The Verdict Of the Jury in the Bucket
Stap Cases-DealiBg in Futures
is Not Gambling.
Judge HOrrigan's Charge-Niee Cues
lions of Law-Difference Between
Gaming and Wagering.

The "bucket-shop' cases were given 10
the jury yesterday. and the verdict was anX-
iously awaited. Judge Horrigan charged
the jury orally and in writing concerning
the case. The written charge was fol-
lows:
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY-This is an in
dictment Tor keeping a common gaming
house. The indictment contains averments
broad enough to sustain a conviction Tor
keeping gaming house, or for gambling or
betting or wagering. Gaming is where there
is an agreement between two or more per-
sons TO risk money or property on a contest
or chance of any kind where one must be the
loser and the other the winner. 1t must,
however, appear that the contest was set on
foot iUT the express purpose Of determining
who would win and who would lose in the
contest Whenever money or ether thing OF
value Is hazarded and may be lost, or more
than their value obtained, and 1t depends
upon chance as to who will win or lose, the
transaction is gambling. In this case there Is
no evidence to show that the defendants had
anything to do with the value of the property
they were selling or buying, or that they had
any power or influence or control over the
market. For this reason conviction can
not be sustained, either for keeping gam
ing-house, or for gambling; therefore, 1t is
not necessary TO further explain the law in
regard to keeping a gaming-house, or gam
ing, you are here instructed to acquit the
defendants of these offenses. You will then
inquire whether or not the defendants are
guilty Of wagering. Wagering, distin-
guished from gaming, is where two or more
persons risk or hazard money, or other val
liable things, upon the existence OF some
thing or some fact, or tho happening or not
happening of certain event. If the de-
PENDANTS in good faith made contract for
the sale of property to BE delivered at
future day, intending at the time TO comply
with the contract as described in the con-
tract offered in evidence, then the transac-
ton is a valid one, and if you so find your
verdict must be Tor the defendants. On the
other hand, if you find that it was mutually
understood that the real transaction was not
that of purchase and sale Of property to be
delivered at a future day, but it was under
stood between the parties that the prop
erty was not to be delivered, and that
the differences between the price on the
day of the contract and the day of closing
it out to be paid by the unsuccessful
party, then the defendants would be guilty
of wagering and, might be convicted under
this Indictment. The contracts introduced
are in all respects valid upon their face. Yet
the jury may go behind the contracts il they
find evidence to justify them in SO doing, in
order to see whether form of contract fair
upon its face has not been used as a cloak to
hide a gambling or wagering transaction;
and if the jury so find, then the recitals in
the instruments introduced as contracts can
not avail the defendants. In order to ascer-
tain whether or not the defendants are guilty
of wagering, or were engaged in lawful
business herein defined, you will look
closely 10 all the facts connected with the
transactions. In word, it is not necessary
that the parties should state to each other
that the property purchased was not to be
delivered, and that only the difference OF
H.. 80 i
chase and the day OF closing out the trans
action; the question il, though not word on
the subject was said, was it mutually under
stood between the parties to the transaction
that it was to be in fact a settlement of the
difference in the value OF the property. If so,
then the defendants would be as guilty OF
wagering though their meaning was ex-
pressed in words. Yet this fact must be
proved before the defendants can be con-
victed.
The jury was out four hours, and returned
a verdict of not guilty.