The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-01-21
viii read You thc rule reirrrcI I %

will read You the rule referred to-
II the buyer notifies the seller that he
wants the cotton, according to the rules
mere laid down, the cotton must be fur.
nlshod. II the sell'r notifies the buyer
that he proposes to deliver the cotton, the
latter has no recourse tut to ACCEPT il. Bui
suppose another party furnishes the cot.
tom They have agreed, according to this
contract to abide by the New YORK Cotton
exchange. Let me read to you the terms
OF this penalty
MIR. Howard buys this cotton for deliv.
cry some time IN April, Before the time
arrives he saws he ordered plaintiffs to sell.
mat had plaintiffs complied with his In
Struclious, his losses would have cen com.
paratively small. He attacks the validity
OF the form OF contract says tue contract
he entered into could bo transferred from
hand to hand, and had NJ teal value Bat
this does not seem to he good argument
Tor, can you not.trans'er = promissory note,
u bill OF ladine, Il warehouse recent, and
are not these all negotiable papers,
Mr., Howard says he had no idea of tax
ing this cotton. Suppose he had entered
into contract with you to do some.
thing. and all the time had no
intention ot carrying ont his oblirs.
ions, would his secret reservation have
''"'' ''AN VI lAl my why Nlllhtel the CON
tract 30 Tar rs you were concerned What
transactions may he carried on In the city
OF New York with regard to cotton, we ARE
not hero to discuss, The fact romans that
Dennis Perkins Co., ut the request Of do.
itndant, purchased certain amount of cot.
ton Tor HUI under the rules VI the New
York Cotton Exchange, which said cotton
would have been furnished to Howard nj
the time agreed had he waited 1t, and had
not sold out In advance In his defense n.
says 1t was q gambling contract. III,
honor will tell you that IL was not, A
gambling contract mus, be one whore both
parties have something at stake, which il
not the case here. Let us look further.
pehns ferkins& Co. before adyancingthelr
money, had the right TO compel
Howard to make his margins good Sui
they trusting to his honesty and good stand.
ing as u business man, disburscd and
and paid out on his behalf certain sums
oi money ana they entered into an
agreement TO deliver to him u certain
amount OF cotton ala given date That
Howard should have intended to act IN bad
faith and refuse to receive this cotton did
not constitute 1t y gambling transaction,
Mems minds must meet an, como together
IN order TO gamble, Can YOU reasonably
suppose that these parties In New York
should know what Mr., Howard wa, think.
ing q, down here In Texas How was n
pcssiblc for them 10 know whether he In.
tended to receive the cotton or not We
might cite thu case OF Sceman against
Suas,hurser & Bros, In Alabama, In sun.
port OF the doctrine that these are not gam.
ing contracts and cannot be
held rs such, See BSScls Reports.
In this case the defendant had the benefit
OF plaintiffs money, which they paid ont
aud expended al his request simply as his
agents, and even had there been bad faith
intended by MIR, Howard, II would IN no
way have violated their contract. Mr.,
Howard says the effect OF such contracts
would be to destroy the morals OF the cnun.
try 1t will DO u great public evil Il you
make him pay these moneys, Now, | want
to know whether twelve honest men In the
state OF Texas will take this view Of the
case. Shall the plaintiffs, because they
happen to live In The city OF New York, not
have Justice at your hands, WIN YOU al
low yourselves TO be influenced Ivy the
harausues Of the defense against the SO.
called aildcd Vices OF the city " New York
and render q verdict that will deprive
my clients OF the go,,d money they paid out
ci their pockets Tor de'endant, snd the com.
missions that are legally due them for ser.
vices rrnd iftd IN ais behs,c Soall he 90