The evening times., 1895-11-26
ESSENTIALLY | WAGER
Judge Cux's Opinion Concerning
the DabhIing in Stocks.
REVIEW OF TIE TESTIMONY
He Holds That the Actual Business Is
to Engage In Betting, and Under
the Law 1t Is Illegel-More Evi-
dence to Be ntroduced and a Final
Decision Later.

After an exhaustive review OF the evi-
| deuce and authorities bearing upon the
case pending before him. upon the charge
against Daniel Ferry for setting up a
gaming table. commonly recognized as
the bucket shop case. Justice Cox, sit
ting in criminal court. No. g, this morning
decided to override the motion made by
counsel to Instruct for verdict for the
defendant.
AIR. &. C. Tucker, of counsel for the de-
fense. Immediately asked for and obtained
leave TO introduce additional testimony,
aud for the reason that his colleague. Mr..
IL. L. Davis, was at the time enga ged in
an address before the Ohnstead jury, in
circuit court, No. l, Mr. Tucker also Sc
cared pcstponement of further considera-
ton until / O'Clock p. m.
In his review of the case Justice Cox said
that the contract entered into between Gus
toner and the broker was, upon its face,
valid, and. quoting Mr. BENJAMIN, whose
doctrine. lie said, is generally accepted as
the correct one. he also staled that a con-
tract is valid even ir the articie bargained
Tor Is not in possession OF the seller.
COURSE OF THE DEALER.
He then passed 10 the consideration OF the
course pursued by the dealer in this case
IN his transactions with CUSTOMERS. Record
of sales and quotations in stocks was kept
daily, he said. and anyone desiring to in
vest his money could order stock at u given
price The profit to the broker was shown
10 be one per cent or more of the investment.
The reason for allowing this margin can be
easily secn. If stock declines on his hands
he suffers "a loss.
/ has been shown that there is NO purchase
OF stock at all. The broker is not obliged
10 buy; he ruDs Ito fisk. If stocks osieiIst-
bly, purchased decline, the difference is
absorbed III The margin, and the matter thus
adjusts itself. Ii The article bargaincd
Tor declines in price, The customer loses,
but If it advances the broker pays the
difference between the contract price
and the market value. II there IS
change OF one cent the difference is dou-
bied and III one or the other way the
customer loses or wins.
1t is essentially n wager, and while the
contract is in legal form, il would not
stand in court. Ir the price falls the Gus
toner cannot recover. and IL IL advances
il makes no difference to either whether
the stock changes hands OF not, the broker
pays the difference. That is all he eX-
ucipates.
BROKER TAKES No RISK.
There is no risk tc the broker. there
fore, under his contract, except in adj
vance OF the price of stocks and the pos
sible demand for delivery at price
that may again decline before he can
make tue purchase.
THIS, the court said, had been shown
10 he extremely improbable, since 81 per
cent at least Of the customers never ask
for the stock bargaiBe for He does not
expect delivery, but he does expect to
bt. paid the difference in price.
The form of the contract, lie said. does
not enter into the case. and granting de-
csion apUlicab Bile he said. 1t ma kcs no
difference whether bet or wager shall be
IN fern contract or not, lf tiic develop
mcnts show II TO he a mere wager.
IL was shown il the case alsO. 10y sworn
eStimony. that when the margin is ex-
hauStel the interest OF the customer in the
transa ction ceases- In neither case is
there any obligation to close the deal-the
customer having the right to leave his
margin on deposit. and to increase II
if desired till the price advances. the only
OF loss irom shrInkaEe Is tfie greater in
proportion to the amount on deposit.
NO DESIRE TO PURCHASE.
Why does not the dealer buy stocks as
bargaiDt.d foro Because he does not expect
TO be called upon for delivery. Ninety
seven ptr cent. oi his Crslulifrs are StlO VII
10 have no Cesire 10 effect an actual trans
fer
Justice Cox's conclusion was that the
actual business OF The firm was to engage
in betting, aud this is prohibited by the
statute against setting UP gaming liable
anywhere IN The District In that event
the jury viii be justified, he said in
finding that the business Is Illegal. He
then overruled defendants motion to in
he was ready TO consider prayers for in
structioHs. II counsel have not prepared
Instructions, he added, the court would an
nounce those he had prepared.
The case will probably be concluded this
evening