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

tuar n if. Jusi.r' GODS no on.
Ctsu "a
u'uu., g. rhinl 81. w.. G.. Howard 4
lo,-A Cause .clth'p.

s ease OF interest fo EusIucss Hu
The 'oil0Niug - tnr c1nfraO i SIR, Justice
woods tu the Jury iu The case 81 Dennis
lrfFiu7 * o., ", W, q, Howard, 90 me
luit ii States circuit onur', iG Hhi'h ihe
Jury found inr the defendant;
CHARGE OF ruE COURT, ~ Nh JUSTICE
WOODS,
GENTLEMEN ~ THE luBy,- D5nnis Per-
hlls a Co tho plaintiff, who brluE thlj
tul', state lhcir Clss substantially ~ iol'
luSs' That NC'lug t7 HHfnt, COR tie NriHn''
ant. W, Howard, tnty purchased iaIAlui
iu the WoHthH - laauTIy, February 1ui
March, 1850, coo halss ~ cotton, 90 DO dee
'ITg-.j .l April; 'hst gu arrch 9Th ,Aay
received ord 200 from tho agis. dnn. 90
tg.. s..T Oh. purchase 81 tui'rI iuty lel
made nr tssnign. from AIul 90 Juue-i
rtg1r -.-I 10 col! the C1ttIu bought 10 Dc
delivered . ApiIl Luf bay tloI 1We guam
'tv, I'D DO delivered lu ,gnlf that hey
ODE. .' moo" |~Ha.'ag#I-E. .uG 'LU- Ntf
Trfs compiled % pa. yI aud pay upon
tn.J Iur-ur-'.I g1't1u made by them Tor
i.0 l.."1tart tho sNIo OF 81 40 %, That lA
! pursuance az orders received NH
la.m .r.u tue defendant en- MsrCn ..H
they ".|a rho cotton buTChg-tt by Them Tor
Ju.- lplyCry' that Tor making this pur'
chase and tE.g they arc entitled 10 commls'
4.Jls .~IpgG1ti l3 $50, ami that ihtiE
/ g8uWlF.l.gu u.l the money advanced By
them Ter tAu defendant amount 10 SS,s2J ~
tU"y Omit that the defendant has phld
iIUu On this amount Tho SUN Of l,i9l.J@
.n.ylgF % balance OF 1901 80, which they
clam with ir;efes. from tho lgS DAY Of
AUg!, lsoO, TO the present dUy, and they
hsS O. verdict o, your hands Tor thH'
amount.
/ do not understand that there sapy dis.
] LHHfN a. IN fHE.4 fQRfE nnINTUfNLn Il IA
coGc 8gd That unlssn some OF the tsieno,
which the defendant has Get IN 20 THIS
claim is made gO0d The plaintiffs are enti'
tied 20 recover 1901 90 with interest rom
say April l, 1850.
There are u plumber OF offences made,
and thoh Brat Is tha, this court has no luris'
C.CLiOn oi the suit because MCrdCCel " Co.,
two gentlemen Of that name who have been
examined az wltDeGscs, are part owners OF
the claim Oh which tniA suit n s.CDghs,
sGd being citigeus OF ttis state, and the DO.
tsnGEus being also n citizen Of this Stale,
this court IS without jurisdiction. There Is
no evidences tending 10 establish tl'B plea,
and yon will, therefore, icy IL out CT your
confederation.
gnp second plea Is substantially 10 the
sam, effect, that az tbs cgmmsucgInelt
OF th'9 SHIT these Een'lpmrn, the
NOrisCa,s, Wsre interested in this ClI'u
az part 0w.rr5. and they should have Grcu
made parties plaintiff with Perkins " Co,
end not having been made plaintiffs, de-
ieldGut pleads ia aba;GmCnt, We say 30
you hat that there IS 10 uyideICs TO suE,
liiu thai plea, and you cIu 10y it also out
Ui your confederation.
Tho next plea ls raIeya! DCulH' 0i the
plaintiffs Cau9H Of ral.On and Of al she
GyCTmeufs OF the petition, and that puts
p],atatIIs upon proc, uheir CAGE su5ssen-
italy us they have 80. cd II IN their pGii'
90. De- L- e d. H. Ll# go. H. 10 ~
Ig'eI ihat the plain .'j have p-lWE lgcic
proven turir case, you aust look 10 he 70.
naming pleas % uGu t'C uC.C4slN Oh which
th. dgiHudGL;Goi.Cs.
THO llg1 u6iIiy relied on gg defence to
;r. entire action D. as follows: and fur
fulr answering, defendant specially denies
t... auy o! the transactions bstWeGn
p|IHil.lis and defendant, or between plain.
uEs agd the pHTt!eg plaintiffs NlleEe lLpy
uaue sid uuTgllCe Uf or sales 80 for de-
fsagrlE. st irierG8u.'F request, we're real
god n1. r. tide; tut a~erg that 81! suCn deal.
.0ga aHN transactions veiG not real aud
poau lde; that no actual sales were Con-
trwulllgd by either party; but, on the con-
tr&ly, that al transactions between de-
te.GsNt end SAID plaintiffs, OF between
| plan.'If5 n.C ne parties plaintiff Gliaae
tApy made pur.nEse Of or sales 60,
l0c Rc1JuuJ OF dri2Tdauf, were in.
tended on both sides 10 be and were ll@".
tory contracts, mere bettings upon the
condition OF the market at the time or
dates Of option OF pretended delivery, With
no intention of d., .lyering or receiving, but
with the intention Of putting up margins
only, and paving lOssee, Without making
! delivery. That plaintiffs in truth and IN
fact Fever dill NuTch9se o bale Of cotton
for defendant; Elr did said plaintiffs ever
sell one bale II cotton for defendant; but
thot plaintiffs wsre gambling in the cotton
market, that is, in tie advancing and de-
cliu,ng Of cotton in New York city, and
were therefore gambling upon the rise and
fall of said cotton market, and were to
ahars in the winnings and losses in said
gambling transactions as is clearly shown
NV plsiuti''5 in ,beir said petition. That
prior to the date OF the transactions set up
in the plsintiffs petition defendant had, at
divers timer, divers other entirely similar
transactions with plaintiffs, in all OF which
no actual cotton was rendered or demsnded
by either party, but each transaction set
tied by q payment OF 'differences.' All OF
which defendant is ready to verify. De-
iendaut AYERS, that for ell of said reasons
said pretended contracts and transactions
were null and void and OF no effect, and
against public policy, and contra hopos
mores and will support no acton or de-
mand.''
The defence thus stated amounts
to this; That these transac.
tiens between the defendant and
plaintiffs were nero gambling transactions;
thst there wa 70 reality in them: there wa
never any intent N on either side TO deliver
or pay for the cotton but only to pay differ.
euceg, co 10 IL called, and that being q
gan b!iYg transaction these plaintiffs, al
though u contract for the purchase OF this
cotton wss made by them, yet that they
knowing the Charac'er OF the contract and
having induced and assisted the defendant
to make it, are not entitled to recover the
money which they advacced OF the con.
tract il behalf Of d~efenoert, or to com.
missions,
The question iOr YOU to decide il whether
this was O gambling transaction. The
question what is q gambling transaction
las been passed upon by the supreme
court of the United States in the case o.
Irwin vs.. Wilisr, 10 U. 3. 400. The
charge which was approved by the supreme
court in hat case YVES as follows IA per
son may make g contract for the sale Of
personal properly for future delivery
which he has not got. Merchants and
traders often do this. A contract for the
sale of p~ersonal property which the vendor
does not own or possess, but expects to OBJ
tain by purchase or other wise, is binding il
an actual transfer of property is con-
templated, A transaction which on iLt
face is legitimate canno be held void
as 0 wagering CONTRACT by showing tia,
one party only 90 understood and meant II
to he.
"The proof must 60 further, and chow ths'
this understanding was mutual-that both
parties 80 understood the transaction. H.
however, az the time OF entering into a con
tract for q sale of personal property fol-
future delivery IL be contemplated by both
parties that at the TINA fixed for delivery
The purchaser shall merely receive or pay
the difference between the contract and the
market price, the transaction is q wager,
and nothing more. II makes no difference