The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-06-11
WISDOM FROM WOODS.
Charge OF Mr.. Justice Woods In the
Case OF
Oennls Perkins vs.. W. q. Howard 4
Goa Cause .Celebre.
A Case Of Inrercs, 10 business Men

The following 10 the charge Of Mr.. Justice
Woods to the Jury IN the case OF Dennis
Perkins a Co. vs.. W. @. Howard, in the
GATED Statea circuit court, In whish the
Jury lound Tor the defendant;
CHARGE or TIE COURT ny Nm. JusTIcE
WOODS.
GENTLEMEN OF THE JuEY;-Dennis Per-
kins & o., the PLAINTIFF, who bring this
suit, state their case substantially ms fol-
lows; That acting as agents Tor The deiend'
ant, W. y Howard, they purchased iorhim
la this months on January, February and
March. 1880, 600 bales OF cotton, 70 be de-
hyered Ia April; that on March 2i,h they
received orders from the dele dHus 30
transfer the purchase OF cotton they had
made ior defendant from April 20 June-ir
other words, 20 feil the cotton bought 10 be
delivered IN April ana buy tho nme guam
uty, 10 be delivered iu June; tliht they
obrSe cd these iusTuc IONS, and that they
were compelled 20 pat up and pay upon
this purchase Of olitpn made by them Tor
tho defendant thu Gum OF -, 20 90, hat IN
pursuance OF orcerj rforiVel ny
them from the defendant on March 29ih
they sold the cotton purchased bV them i1r
June delivery; that for making ms pnr'
chase nnd ealo they orc entitled 10 c mmls-
sious amounting 10 S225, nnd mat thtir
commissions and The mouey advanced by
.hsm fCr tho defendant amount 20 $500 81
] IAAA w. nav NHA NH-N" "H"HH EE
hem on his amount tie sum OF sl,40l,52
leaving q Dalauc. OF sO1l %, which they
claim with interest from the lt day OF
April, 1850, % the present day, ard they
AK 4 verdict ~ your hands Tor thal
amount.
| do not understand thai there 10 any dis
pute as to these 'actB. ! understand ~ u
conc ded that unless some OF the uaicrce
which the defendant has sot No 20 thla
claim ~ made gond tho plaintiffs are onti'
lied 10 recover s9Jl 90 WIKI interest from
say April !, 1880.
T'hpre sre a number OF deieuccs made,
and the first ~ that this court has no 1nrls'
Glotion OF the SUIT because Mordecai IL Co.,
two gentlemen # that name who haVe oepn
rxamined as Witnesses, are part owners OF
the claim on which this suit Is brought.
add being ciiizens Of this state, ana tue de-
fandant being also n oiiiz n o.! this state,
this court Is without i~uTisdio ion. There IS
40 evidence tending - establish THIS plea,
aud von will, therefore, iay IL cut OF your
consideration.
The second plea Is substantially to the
came effect, that ~ tho commencement
of this suit these gentlemen, the
| Mordt cai'f. w,rA Interested IN this claim
as mart oNu.r. aNd they Oh0uln nave btcn
made parole. i,,t. 4 With Perkins " %,
and not having bo.n made platinum, de-
fendast pleads in Sbslement. We cay 70
Won that that there Is 10 evidence to sus-
tain that plea, aud you can lay u also out
OF your consideration
Tho next pies Is a general denial OF the
plaintiffs cause Of action and OF oil the
ayerments OF the petition, gud that puts
plaintiffs upon proof OF their case sunttan-
TALLY rs they have stated IL In their PEI
non. But aB IL does not seem 20 be dis
puted that the plaintiffs have prime faoie
craven their case. you must look 10 the re.
msining pleas to hnd the deienses on which
the defendant relies.
The plea mainly relied on 90 Q defence to
The entire acli0n is as follows: And Tar
Their answering, defendant specially denies
that sny OF the tTGusaciions between
plaintiffs and defendant, or between plain
| iIns end the parties plaintiffs allese they
made said purchase Of or nsle5 % Tor DE-
fsBdaut, at defendants request, were real
or bona Gde; but Gvers that all such deal.
inrs and transactions were not real aud
bona fde; that no actual Gales were cnr-
tamplated by either party; but, on ihe CON
Lrarv. that all transact ong oetween do
tends nt and esid plaintiff, or hetwesn
plaintiffs aud the parties pleintl1l allcke
tbcy made purchase OF or SALES 70,
Tor account of defendant, were in.
tended on both sides 10 bo and were oil s.
tory contracts, mere bettings upou the
condition OF the market al the time or
dates OF option or pretended deliver, With
no Intention OF delivering or receiving, but
with the intention OF putting up margins
only, and paying losses, without making
delivery. That plaintiffs IN truth and in
fact never did purchase one bale OF Gotten
for defendant; nor did said plaintiffs ever
sell one bale Of cotton for defendant; but
that plaintiffs we're gambling in the cotton
market, that is, In the advancing end de-
olininp of cotton in New York city, and
were therefore gambling upon the riso and
fail OF said cotton market, and were 70
ahsre In the winnings and losses In raid
gambling transactions es is clearly shown
by plaintiffs in their said petition. That
prior to the date OF the transactions set up
IN the plaintiffs petition defendant had, &c
divers timep, divers other entirely similar
transactions with plaintiffs, in all of which
no actual cotton was rendered or demanded
by either party, but each transaction set
lied By q payment OF 'diferenoes.' All OF
which defendant 10 ready 70 verify. De-
fendsnt ayers, that for all OF Haid ressols
said pretended contracts and transactions
were null and v Id ani OF no effect, and
against public policy, and contra bonos
mores anu wll supp1As no AKRON or d
mand.n
tom bstwsen the defendant ard
plaintiffs were nierB gambling trsusactions;
thai there was no reality in them; there was
never any intention on either side to deliver
or pay for the cotton but only 70 pay differ
encee, as it Ia called, end that being q
gambling transaction these plaintiff. al
though 3 c0ntracl Tor the purchase OF this
cotton was made by them, yet that they
knowing the character OF tho clntract and
having Induced aud assisted the defendant
10 make IL. ara not entitled 10 recover the
money which they advanced on the con.
trsc, 10 behalf Of defendant, or to COM
missions.
The question for YOU 10 decide 10 whether
this was n gambling transaction. The
question what is q gambling transaction
has been passed upon by tbe supreme
court OF the United States In the case of
Irwin vs.. Wilier, 40 U. q. $50. The
charge which was approved by the supreme
court in that case was as fo!lowa "A per.
son may make a contract Tor the sale OF
personal properly for future delivery
sh,ch b. has not got. Merchants nnu
traders often do this. A contract sor the
sale OF personal property which the vendor
does not own or possess, but expecis 20 OBJ
tain by purchase or oiherwise, is binding II
an actual transfer OF property Is con
u mpla,ed A transaction which on iis
face is Legitimate cannot be- held void
as a wagering coltrac' By showing that
one party Only 10 understood end meant 10
to DO.
THE proof must 20 further, and show that
this understanding vas muiuai-that both
parties so understood tie transaction. IL,
however, nj the time OF entering into a con.
tract for q sale Of personal property for
future delivery ia be contemplated by b tn
parties that at the time fixed for delivery
the purchaser shall merely receive or pay
the difference between The ccltrict and the
market price, the transaction 10 = wager,
ard nothing more. Ii makes 10 difference
that q bet or wager Is made 10 assume the
form OF a contract. Gambling IL none the
I...srch hec.usa a Ia carried cu i'm tho form
or Ruise Of legitimate trade"