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


AN orders for the purchase or sale
of any article are received and executed
with the distinct understanding that AC-
TUAL DELIVERY is contemplated, and
that the party giving the orders 80 UNI
Cerstauds and agrees
10 is further understood that on all
marginal business the right IL reserved
60 close transactions when margins are
running out. without further notice, and
10 settle contracts in accordance with
the rules and customs of Exchange where
order is executed
And they moreover prove that no trans
actions. not contemplating an actual de
livery of the commodity purchased, could
have been had through The Board Of
Trade of Chicago. where the purchases
I'm the case Were mace.
The burden of proof 10 show The inva-
Hditv of these transactions rests upon
the defendant. The contracts are pre-
sumed TO De lcgalsand The burden TO
prove iuegality rests upon those making
the claim Irwin vs.. Miliar 10 L. 81
supra. 5o7.
The evidence 10 show invalidity should
be clear and conclusive, ana the mere
fact that the defendant, one of the par
ties TO the transactions, may not nave
contemplated am actual delivery OF me
wheat purchased will not suffice. The
test Of ilegalty is the intention, not alone
of one of the parties but az boih ct AN.
Bangs vs.. Hornick, 90 j.. r.; Ward vs..
Nasburgh. 81 j.. r., j., H. -; Lehman vs..
Field. 81 r.. r., 6j2
So far as the claim Of the original peti-
TONER. Fora Hill, is concerned, which is
the only debt of considerable amount IN
volyed il is evidenced by negotiable note
Of the defendant given on account OF
money advanced by W. A. P0rteriieid q
Co.. the brokers through whom the trans
actions i'm controversy We're had. 10 cover
purchases OF wheat made by them Tor
him and for which he failed to pay. Al
the maturity of the original notes. given
for the money thus advanced, al the
earnest solicitation of said Levy. re-
newal Of the note was had and with the
express stipulation and agreement Ia
writing that i'm consideration OF the eN-
tension. payment of the new note would
De promptly made when due and without
further offset or extension. This renewal
NOTE AS indeed were the original notes,
is held by the said petitioner, Fora Hill
who claims TO have acquired them for
value. before maturity and without no
tice Of the alleged illegal consideration.
While the fact Of the advancement or
the money for the defendant by his agent,
and the position claimed by petitioner,
Hill. of an innocent holder for value Of
the defendants negotiable note may not
under the law disenutle defendant 10 in
terpos. so serious "A defence as that said
transactions are based upon a gaming
or wagering consideration, still, il but
accentuates che fact that under such cir
tumstances. the defence should be clearly
made out by those relying upon It to
avoid the payment of their obligations
made and placed upon the market for
sale
The defendant has not only failed 10
bear the burden placed upon him of max
ing out his defence, but the preponder-
ance OF the evidence seems TO be clearly
against him: indeed his own evidence is
all offered to support his view Of the case
and an examination Of what he SAYS will
show that upon the essential features
Of the case. in his statement he is vague.
uncertain and unsatisfactory. TO such an
extent that court would not be justi-
fed I'm adopting his version of the trans
actions under consideration. where the
same is seriously disputed and the evil
dence Of others furnished TO the contrary.
with the view taken by the court Of the