The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1901-05-22
A GAMBLING Debt.
4 Spartanburg Farmer Refuses to Re-
fund Margins to Brokers.

fund Margins to Brokers.
J. H. Parker & Co, members of the
New York Cotton Exchange, have filed
suit in the United States Circuit
| Court against W. A. Moore, farmer
of Spartanburg County, for "a, 1881,
alleged to be due on cotton contracts
bought in October, 1900. In the com
plant it is alleged that the brokers
had orders from Moore to buy 1900
bales Of cotton for future delivery and
that soon after the purchase the mar
ket began to decline and the firm was
forced to sell at the loss named in the
suit. The answer filed by the defen-
dant states that it was merely a gam
bling venture, which was immoral, IL
legal, contrary to public policy and
against the laws of South Carolina.
The claim of the New York brokers is
denied.
The case is interesting to specula
tors and others. The complaint OF
Parker & Co.. sets forth that in Oct
ober the defendant, Moore, requested
the firm to buy the 1,200 bales, to be
delivered as follows: 400 bales in
January, 300 bales in March and 500
bales in May, of this year, the pur
chase to be made according to the
rules of the New York Cotton Ex-
change. The plaintiffs alleged that
they entered the market, and bought,
the defendant agreeing to take the
prices which were then on hand to pay
any loss that might accrue to the
plaintiff. After the purchase the mar
ket dropped. Prices went down at a
rapid rate until the contracts had lost
81, ,333, II, which sum tthe plaintiffs
claimed they were bound to advance
and did advance to those from whom
the cotton was purchased, in the
mean time notifying the defendant
and asking him to make good. At his
failure to put up the plaintiffs claim
that they were forced to close and sell
the contracts. AS a result of this
transaction they alleged that they are
now due the amount named from
Moore, as we'll as interest from Octo-
Der "a, 1900.
In the answer filed by Mr.. Stanyarne
Wilson for W. A. Moore, the defendant,
it is alleged that prior to October the
parties had dealings and business
transactions in no wise different from
those of the month of October all of
which, it is alleged, were gambling
transactions, immoral, illegal, con-
trary to public policy and against the
statute law of South Carolina, to wit,
Article 2, Chapter SO, Revised Statutes
of 1893. The answer goes on to say
that the apparent contracts OF pur-
chase were not real ones, but mere
covers or guises for the illegal con-
tracts: that the business relation of
plaintiff to defendant was as broker
of the New York Cotton Exchange, to
bring together the defendant and other
dealers on said Exchange for the sole
purpose of making illegal contracts
and for the personal gain Of the brok-
ers, who realize 80 on every 100
bales; that the plaintiffs were partl-
ceps criminis in such gambling IN
the rise and fall of the price OF
cotton, and that in this the plaintiffs
realized large sums. It is furthermore
alleged that the business was specula-
ton upon chances, the cotton exist
ing only in Imagination, no delivery
being contemplated or preparation
therefor ever made by either the buy
er, seller or broker; that the intention
was to settle the differences" in the
market: that it was venture on the
turn of prices, no money being invest
ed except so much as was necessarily
required to cover margin, as at the
delivery time one party would pay the
other the difference in the market.
The defendant says that, according
to the method of gambling to purchase
or sell 100 bales of cotton required
margin of only 800 and 80 as brok-
er's commission, to make bona hde
contract, and that while for future
actual delivery it would require CAPT
tai of $1,000 or $1,000 for every 100
bales. or twelve times that amount
of money for 1,2OO bales.
The defendant admits that he IS
farmer and his only desire or inter
est in the transaction was specala-
ton.
In conclusion the answer says that
the plaintiff had no power or author
ity to or did not make the defendant
their debtor by putting up margins
for him after the amount in their
hands to his credit had been exhausted
by the course of the market; that
even if they chose to do so they had
no right to close out at the bottom OF
the market and thereby prevent him
from rising with it upon its recovery
soon thereafter: that if the plaintiffs
sustained any loss, which the defend
ant does noS admit, it was due to-
their own unauthorized assumption of
power. followed by their 'timidiy, mis-
management and unconcern about his
interest, and he, the defendan, is in n0
way liable therefor.
d SOUTHERN POET.