The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-06-12

mode atIuifsf. ilT tIr defendant lf ihe
purchase NJ 600 bales ~ cotton, and tfarf.
mnl'it 90 Him RI fHiHmtnt no IHe ~ a. ihff
Ilfl u1l mHdD IhH u1r1lHaH HC'HrH'Hf 'H
The VlH.nUl4 claim that thr u'utfrCi lu
us ffcl vss e valid contract. They riitr tn
tha rules Of ths Nug York Cation tEchrnFe,
which rive r. i0fm ter al there contracts,
aud which provide "All contracts for the
iLture delivery OF cotton shall be binding
upon members, end Ol lull iCT.e % Cilsot
until the quantity sai qualities g. cotton
soac.itd m fu1h contract sb.ll have bean
do Ivarsd, ant The price specified ~ sad
cnatra't shall have been paid, Nor shan
any contract be entered iHfn WIEN p
stipulation or understandings between the
paTtier, 90 the time Of making tnch
contract, that tho terms 0fRnld c~lltraei as
speciiird Ia section 70 Of the hr-..T5 Hra not
ia he iGlhiltd, and Tho U5tiGn delivered
aud received IN accordance with HRid sec
tom
The cautrauou Of the Tl.iaiIs 70 that
thew made the contract 10. Geo ~u".ladgat
under these rules, aud that UIln ihe lace
OF thess rules the party sgil.lF the cotton
was bound % dell5er It ana tle party pnr
chs. l1c Yves bop-d ~ receive H.l gAY Ipf
30, ]. that C~0itugllal ib t.U.. " ,at. rs ne
neal. transaction end s'Lta %, CD. ci.', u
ta'a uuEu0Wn party agreed 90 sell tlit cot,
ton with he intention Of dg,.i % ~ GtI
H0WrTl Dough. the cotton u.IH laa inter-
ION lf living l., or II either nua pi tho
parties entered into the C3atrl1, with the
purpose o. carrying 10 cut 10 gogd iaitA by
receiving toe cotton OF by Gyliy.fiug u, q!
contract and DsGuiP, Perkins g Ca. axe en-
titled 90 recover from defendant what they
have paid IN hia behEli on me contract, and
their commissions, aud ore entitled 20 the
amount with interest. Bat he defendant
says that clucsdiug that tale, upon tho
face o. the transaction, may have been inc
contract, sc. Il is not IN let the contract
otthe parties. The defendant contends
that sneIe was never any Intention,
either on his prs or On The
part OF the unknown party who sold him
the cltt0n that thtr5 saouId pa . delivery
on the one hand aud a receipt .gd payment
OF the price on the other. lie says IL was a
mere bot between him Hru the unknown
party upon the future market; that be be.
that cotton would 20 up duriuG April and
the other party bet that II woald 80 dowF,
and tact that was really tho transaction,
aud nothing else. In order to MAKE good
tDis defense, rs you will see from What /
have read you from this decision OF the
supreme court Ct tho United States, II 10
necessary that both the parties TO this
TRANSACTION, that tho seller ana purchaser
should HAYS understood IL in the same wa',
Il is necessary that Howard slOuld have
understood that he was no. .yund 70 r''
Cc.ve tae c5iton, but only ssl'l. the differ.
e1c-s, and that tho other party understood
that Re 1as not bound 90 du,.va?, but only
to pay CO rC..r7 the difference II you
~. satisfied frrg '4s LV''-.Cs ~ tGlg case
ta.t the contract was .!ag.j . wagering
Contract, as / nave defined 10, 'anJ Eethrr
party had luy intention OF either receiving
or delivering the cotton, tL-s .l. unknown
seller had 40 intention Of srl'y.rilE the
cotton, and that the dC!CGldgs had 30 ir.
fgut:ou o! receiving the cotton a-t paying
for IL when the time Tor deliy Fv arrived, i.
tAuG WAC the UNDERSTANDING 81 Goth parties
10 Wg3 . wagering contract aud tl3 de-
PENDANT 30 not liable 20 pay the
money which the plain ids clam To
advanced N his benaiI upon toe .ur-
chase. But So, on Tho other band, Che ,yi-
Geuce does no. gatisfy you thsL such Tes
the understanding Of Do.l the parties 10
hglG good. Now, IN order 10 G.g'r,s'G
whether 'L's defence 10 made CurNHu 1rt.g
look NJ all JHo circumstance ~ausroGsatuE
the transaction % the declaration 90 the
parties NJ the time the coLtrsCt YVES made.
Gou are aoG c0Utiuec to the Ll51 terms gl
tae contract because that on is lace seems
be- G. valid contract, but yea axe - do.
l.lG hlltb tle 1NAl by4lbt4sgL N~-s 2. ~ III lH-
lag this you may cJasidtr all the situation
mad surroundings o. the 52rl5s AID all
facts ana circUmstarCes which tend %
throw any Light on the transaction.
L. is claimed further on thu part Of the
asf.ndu5I tapt MggdlG-, {: Co. we're GgeutG
Of The plaintiffs, puu hat the defendant
made Epown 70 NlCrdecsi 81 90 what his
purpose was in entering into this contract.
According 20 ny recollection there was
-,a,, ~ fraVps1pa IN th. fH.fiTlnTu imam lhTa
point, int even lit BIO true that the de-
PENDANT made knoWnt to Mordecai e. Co.
when he entered upon the negotiation for
the purch gse OF the cotton that he merely
intended to pay the difference aud never
expected TO receive L pay Tor the cotton,
yet that circumstance m9y be
rsbutted by the further fact
which plaintiffs claim to haya proven that
after the contract WIGS made ~ them in
New York they sent 8 written and printed
notice TO the defendant to tee effect that
thew had made the contract for him &C.
cording to the rules O.! the New York Cot
ton exchange. If that be a iscG, and the
rules o the New York Cotton exchange re-
quirc it 20 be 3 bona ide contract, requir.
ing the parties to receive on the Que hsud
and TO deliver on the other, the party re.
ceiving such notice never objecting TO it,
might be construed as Il ratification OF
their act in making the contract in the
form in which they did. So that, even if
the defendant did give Instructions to Nor
decsi & Co. TO make q wagering contract,
yct If he was informed that q bona fide con.
tract he'd been made for him under the
rules o. the New York Cotton exchange,
ana did not object to it, and never took shy
exceptions, you may consider that as tend
ing TO show a ratification on his part of the
cont set which was made in his behalf by
the PLAINTIFF, although, IS l have already
Said to YOU, the form OF the contract made
by the plsintiffs for defendant was valid On
its face, vet if the real transaction was q
wagering transaction, both parties, the IN.
known seller and the known buyer SO IN
| d~ersianding it, there csn be no recovery.
BuJ the defendant pleads furthef that
even il the oontracS IL not 8 wagering
contract yet that toe defendant is
not bound for all tne money claimed, be-
cause on the 22i of March, 1880, he wrote 8
letter 10 the plaiatiifs in New York ii
which he directed them that rs soon es the
cotton which he had purchased had fallen
FIVE points that they should sell immedi
ately end not let the cotton decline further
without ceiling, and hat II they haG
obeyed his Instructions given in shat letter
instead of owing plaintiffs $9C1, the amount
for which he would have been liable woulC
only be 1851 SO, ard that even if the con
tract is aid and binding, yet on account o
the neglect OF the plaintiffs to follow his in
structions, he is only liable for the sun
have mentioned.
The issue is raised here whether that let.
ter was ever sent or received. You hav'
the evidence of the defendant shat he wrote
the letter and handed it to his clerk, prop
erly directed and post paid, to deposit i,
the post.ofice. You have the evidence o
tue clerk that about that time, the 2)th OF
22d OF March, he did deposit such q lette
in the post offics in this place directed K
the plaintiff ifs in New York City. That i
the testimony on part OF defendant to show
that he notified the plaintiffs to make tn
sale Of the cotton. The plaintiffs, on thu