The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-10-10
Oct. 80, By balance, being draft between

Oct oui ID! DelnB uralL DetNeen
parties ...........Sll, Az o0
Motel have 100 m. July spring wheat sold for
you and the settling price Of same as fixed by board
OF trade S1.@5) including CONS. &c.
"That item ofSl2, 900 balance in said ac-
count consists of money advanced and
paid to the defendant; that the item of
July by draft, $1,000, consisted of $1,000
money paid the defendant by means OF a
draft"
Plaintiff testified further, "that on April
., 1883, / served the following notice
upon the defendant by delivering to him
a copy thereof The defendant read the
notice, admitted he had the money in his
hands, but declined to pay it over"
The notice was offered in evidence and
is as follows:
To VI. G. Barber, Esq:
In statement made by you dated October
80, 1852, of deals made on my account on the
board of trade, Chicago, you acknowledged a
balance in your hands of ST., 1920 in my
favor being, so the statement says, the differ
ence between the price you sold 100 bushels
July wheat for me and the selling price of
same as fixed by the board of trade, $l.35. in
Guiding your commission of 4 cent; now you
are hereby notified that | claim all contracts
for sale of said wheat to be illegal and void
and forbid you TO pay over any part of said
money of balance to anyone, and further de-
mand the immediate payment thereof to my
self
Dated Chicago, April 2, 1888.
JAMES 3. WHITE.
Judge Blatchford Sets Down on White.
After setting out the other evidence in
the case, Judge Blatchford said: "On the
foregoing evidence, the plaintiff claimed
to recover the before mentioned sum of
ST., 4l2.50, as money placed by him in the
hands of the defendant for the purpose of
dealing in gambling contracts at the Chi
cago board OF trade, and which contracts,
1t was asserted, were made illegal by a
statute of Illinois"
And after speaking at length of other
features of the case, the judge closed his
opinion by quotation from a case similar
to that made by Capt. Whites testimony,
as follows:
eve do not see on what ground party,
who says in his pleading that the money
which he seeks to recover was paid out for
the accomplishment of purpose made
an ofIense by the law, and who testifies
and insists to the end of his suit that the
contract on which he advanced his money
was illegal, criminal and void, can recover
it back in q court whose duty it is to give
effect to the law which the party admits
he intended to violate"
Great statesman, moralist and reformer
is our congressman! He was willing to
gamble, he says, but when the other fell
lows raked in his Doodle, unlike a true
gambler, he squealed and sought the
courts for relief, forgetting the old maxim
that there was "honor among thieves"
According to the rules of the board of
trade, his broker would have been sus-
pended for dishonesty, had he not covered
up the deal with the captains cash.
But it was not for this
reason that the court refused to
relieve Mr.. White, but upon the grounds,
in the language of Judge Blatchford, ''that
the contract on which he advanced his
money was illegal, criminal and void and
could not be recovered in court, whose
duty it was to give effect to the law which
he admits under OATH he intended to
violate"
No one denies the right of Capt. White
TO deal in futures, but when he attempts
to humbug the voters with his bun
combe reform speeches it is time
that the people know whether Represen-
tative White practices what he breaches.
Those interested in suppressing this
illegal juggling with the farmers prod
ucts and workingmen's food should not
take this for granted, but look up U. S.
report No. 123, page 1872, which can be
had in most law offices. FITZ MAC.