The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1897-08-20
Stock Brokers, Being Middle Men,
Violating No Law.
POINTS In THE CHI AIMING CASE
Defendants Claim That the State
uents of Facts In the Complain
ants Bill Are Not True, and That
They Had No TraDsa ctions With
Her such as She Alleges.

can Security anc Trust Company, Of this
| preme court OF the District OF Columbia
on the 18th instant granted AL injunction
and appointed receiver to take cbarge
of the property involved, pending the liti
cation, IL one of interest, not only to stock
brokers, but also to those who may have
| dealings with them It Is reasonable 70
suppose that Mrs. Charming has stated her
| case as strongly as she possibly could, for
| such is the rule when persons go into the
courts to have. their rights adiudicated,
/ and until the defendants shall have pre-
| scnted their side OF the ease, IC reliable
Judgment can he formed
II has long been u settled rule of law
OF this country that contracts for the sale
OF properly or stocks To he deliver ed at a
| future day, when neither OF the contracting
4 parties really intend t,.at the property or
/ stocks shall be delivered or accepted. are
4 wagering contracts not enforcible in the
courts; or, If under the guise of such con
| tracts the real intent OF both parties be
merely to speculate in the rise and fall or
| prices, and the property or stocks are not
/ in fact tc be delivered, but one party Is %
| pay the other the difference between the
contract prize and the market price at the
| date fixed fer executing the contract, then
the Transaction constitutes nothing more
4 than q wager, and is a nullity.
Such has been the doctrine declared by
! the Snprerne Court of the United States.
| but the law applicable TO the principals in
| such Contracts does notin aIlrespects apply
| to the stock brokers who are understood
| ordinarily TO be 81 IMPLY middle men
through whom the real contracting parties
| deal Contracts made thr ough stoc K
brokers may be void and not enforcible as
| between the seller and the buyer OF
| futures, aId yet the stock broker be en-
titled to recover Ids Commissions and all
moneys advanced for his client
A stock broker may negotiate Contracts
| for future delivery Of property or stocks
without moving what the real intent Of
| the principal parties to the contract Is,
and in such cases, whet her the contract
really he ,nG void at law or not, he is en-
| titled tc recover all moneys paid cut by
him for either OF the contracting par
ties, as also his commissions. A contract
for the sale OF purchase OF futur res only
1oidatle when both the principal parties
TO the contract intend at the time Uf max
ing it that there shall be no delivery OF the
property. II has often be en- held by the
courts that ihe Intention of one party not
TO accept or deliver will not affect the
validity of a contract for futures, but in
order to FENDER such contracts void, 1t
must be the intention of lot the principal
"a hat = h. IN, hal
be settled simply OH the differences or
margins
In the case OF Mrs. Claiming VS. Mac
Dona Bullock x Co.. the courtin In granting
the Injunction and appointing a receiver
had nothing before 1t but the bill of com
plaint filed by Mrs Claiming. The tle
fenaants had made TO answer Ia the bill;
they had simply filed demurrer alleging
that a court of equity lad no jurisdiction
of such matters, and that even admitting
| the facts to be as stated ny Mrs. Charming
IN her bill that she would not be entitled to
the relief Which she asked. The demurrer
has not been heard by the court, but is stll
pen ding, and Will bG argued before the court
in September and until then there can be
no Judgment as to the sufficiency OF her bill.
The def feridants appeared before the court
on the 18th. pursuant to notice. TO
show cause why an injunction should not
he granted and d receiver appointed, and
the only question raised by them at that
hearing was whether the facts stated III
the bill brought the ease within the pro-
visions 0f the statute I'm force in the Dis
trict OF Columbia, SO as TO entitle her 90
equitable relief in any event. The defend-
ants, through theiI counsel, insisted THAT
as Mrs. Charming stated her case she was
not entitled, under the provisions of the
statute, to equitable relief They admit
ted that she alleged state of facts, which.
if true. showed that she had been engaged
in making wagering contracts with the
defendants, and the defendants insisted,
if that was true, that she was in pari
d,licto and that a court OF equity would
not interpose to giant her relief.
1t was .,,ntended by complainants coun
spl that the case fell within the gambling
act of the statute, whereby ii is provided
ihat money lost at the gambling table
might be recovered by tie loser, provided
suit was brought witt hin three months from
the date OF loss. and which act Jso gives
jurisdiction to a court OF equity. That act
is chapter 25 in the compiled statutes in
force in the District of Columbia.
The defendants contention is that the
business If brokers is legitimate and not
condemn by law, and that even future
contracts are not made Illegal, but are
simply void. Through counsel, they con-
tended that the acts alleged against them
by Mrs. Claiming in her bill OF complaint,
II true, would not make them liable 10
indictment; that is, that their acts Were
not Illegal and that the ga milling statute,
iiy virtue of which alone jurisdiction fer
the recovery of money lost at gambling
is conferred upon a court of equity does not
apply.
1t is understood that Macdonald, Bul
lock & Co. will fight the case, IL necessary.
ry their counsel that in their opinion the
court has no jurisdiction, and that Mrs.
Cbannirg cannot sustain her suit They
say that the statement of facts In Mrs
Cbanning's bill is not true. They say
they never had any such transactions with
her us she alleges, and that when all the
facts arc made known to the court as they
really exist, that they viii be entirely vim
dicated In every respect.
The defendants say that they can and
will, IL their demurrer to the bill is over
ruled, file an answer under oath, denying
every material allegation in the bill The
no doubt by the public with interest
Boy Bitten by a Dog.
Raymond Norfolk, a two-year-old boy,
resjslinv on street southeast vas bit.en