The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-11-25

throughout the country. Including the
CITY of Peter sburg. and ihc indebtedness
with said Levy arose by reason of trans
actions between them I'm reference 10 the
purchase OF wheat hy them during The
year lN'N. The defendant Levy. iny
sists that his transactions with said firm
were mere specuations In grain. that he
gave orders through an agent Af vs.. a.
Iofterhcld Co. that he had no deal
lnEs directly with said firm SEQ far as eiv-
inr HE orders were concerned. that his
entire transactions contemplated dealing
m FUTURES Boo wheat. and The payment OF
lnc difference according 90 the fuctua-
Toms OF the market. between the con-
tract price Of purchase and the price for
which The same were sold. and that no
actual purchase or delivery OF wheat was
ever contemplated OF intended SAID Por-
iorUeld & co.. on the other hand. insist
that they do q legitimate brokerage busl-
moss. that they acted solely as brokers
in their dealings with Levy. that they
were members OF The Chicago Board OF
Trade. making purchases for said Levy
and selling for him whenever requested
go 90 do. that they had no manner OF i'm
tCrcsf boz what they did. further than 10
secure their commissions. and that each
and every purchase of wheat they made
contemplated ana actual delivery. which
could have been had whenever said Levy
requested 20. that the transactions thus
Dad were bona Gde and that upon no
otl.sr terms could purchases have been
made ON the Chicago Board of Trade.
that the Indebtedness 10 question arose
from payments made by them 90 their
agents in Chicago 60 make good the pur-
cha1ss made on account of said Levy,
which hc recognized. fully acquiesccd in,
gave liz negotiable notes for the amount
thereof and subsequently caused them 90
d. renewed and that the notes in ques-
tion as we'll as the renewals. were for
value transferred 90 the petitioner Iora
Hu
LAW ON THE SUBJECT.
The law applicable 10 this case. assum-
iug that the Virginia statute. section $50.
code of 1885,. in reference 20 gaming. APP
plies 90 transactions of the kind in Ques-
tion. seems TO be well settled. AS stated
by AR. Benjamin. 50 SIS:
"1hat u contract for the sale OF goods
10 be delivered at a future day - valid.
even though the seller has not the goods.
or any other means of getting them then
20 90 into the market and buy them. But
such a contract is only valid when the
parties really intend and agree that the
goods are 90 be delivered hy the seller
and the price TO be paid by the buyer II
under guise OF such contract the real
intent be merely 90 speculate iu the rise
and fan of prices. and the goods arc not
90 be delivered. but one party is 10 pay
10 the other tho differences between the
contract price and the market price OF
the goods at the date fixed for executing
the contract. then the whole contract con-
stuutcs nothing more than "a wager and
Is uull and void. '-Beujamin on Sales,
vol IT,. p. 7l7. Am. Ed. by Corbin sec.
S3S: ROuntree rs. smith JOS T.. S. 169,
Irwin VS. Williar. 10 l.. S. 499, JoN-lO;
Embrey vs.. Jennison. 1M L.. s. 1885, Si2
Whether or not the petitioners should
be defeated i'm their recovery because of
the alleged wagering character of the
transactions out of which. it is claimed,
their several debts arose. end whether,
as matter of fact, anything is due 10
them or either of them. 4re questions
which can alone be determined from "a
fun consideration of AN of the facts q
the case and the circumstances sur
rounding the several transactions.
T'pon the whole evidence my conclu-
sion is that the several petitioners are
dus the. amounts respectively claimed by
them. and that while it is true as TO said
debts. and particularly of tn debt of the
petitioner. Zora Hill a suspicion or pre-
sumption might arise from the circum-
stances surrounding tho transactions out
of which they arose that said debts were
tainted with gaming or wagering cone
sidcration. still ! do not gecl, in the light
of the evidence as adduccd that ] should
so hold. or would be justified in so do
ing To declare The debts OF the peti-
TONERS iuvand. upon the evidence I'M this
case. would be- in effect TO hold that all
brokerage transactions involving the
purchase and sale of commodities Of the
character dealt i'm. were void. While
such "a conclusion from a purely moral
standpoint as well. indeed as from
busircss view. would he "a contamination
dcvoutly 10 be wishd' still, taking into
consideration IT'S legal bearing IL cannot
be reached in this case. The law author
lies speculaiiOns in grain ana other pro-
ducts. as we'll as in stocks. bonds and
proncrty of such like character. and
places only the inhibition that actual