The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-12
BLOW TO BUCKET SHOPS
MASTER IN CHANCERY SUSTAINS
CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE.
Property Rights Are Held in Continu-
Gus Quotations, Mr.. Daniels Finds
discussion of the Case.

Indiana bucket shop operators may
have received knockout blow in the find
ing filed yesterday in the Office Of the
clerk of the United States Court by Ed
ward Daniels, master in chancery, in the
case of the Chicago Board Of Trade
against L. A. Kinsey & Co.. of Indian
apolis, and ,other stock brokers of Indiana.
Unless certain facts can be shown-which
are cited-Mr. Daniels holds that the Chi
cago Board of Trade has property rights
in quotations His decision is distinctly
adverse to the defendants.
Several months ago the Chicago Board
of Trade sued for injunction against Kin
sey ct al, asking that the United States
Court mandate them from using the daily
quotations Of the board Judge Baker re-
fused at the time to grant the restraining
order asked and referred the whole matter
to the master in chancery, Mr. Daniels,
with instructions to take the evidence and
to make a finding thereon. Last month
there was an argument before the master
in chancery in which the attorneys for the
defendants sought to show that the Chi
cago Board of Trade was in itself a big
bucket shop" and was not entitled to re-
lief from the use of its quotations by other
so-called bucket shops"
In considering the question Mr. Daniels
discussed the point as to whether ii is law
full to trade in property not in possession.
1T is possible" he says, land il is law
full for single article of property to be
traded in many times over, whether the
trading transactions are concluded in a
brief space of time or whether they be
extended over long period of time"
Even If there are a few gambling trans
actions In the Board of Trade, Mr.. Dan
tels holds the entire volume of the busi-
ness or the board cannot be condemned.
CONTENTION OF DEFENDANTS.
ators that the quotations were of such i'm
portance in fixing prices throughout the
entire country that the board could not
lay claim to an exclusive right TO them.
was thrown out by Mr.. Daniels. He could
not find, from the evidence submitted,
from what source or how Kinsey & Co.
received their quotations Neither does the
evidence show that the defendants are
conducting bucket Shops he holds.
The Chicago Board of Trade has property
| rights in the quotations, Mr.. Daniels finds,
| unless IL can be shown
l. That the continuous quotations have
become so affected with the public's inter-
/ est that the complainants right has been
| absorbed In the larger right of public use
and control.
2. That the continuous quotations are
| OF fictitious prices. in violation of the
bucket-shop laws.
3. That the quotations are contrary to
the law on gambling.
| 4. That the manner of use of such quo
| tations by the board is such that they
| should be publicly published.
| He holds that neither of these conten-
| tions are mafntainable as against the
| continuous quotations.
| The complainant he declares, is en-
/ titled to relief prayed for I'm the bill OF
| complaint unless it should be denied such
| relief for either of the following reasons
| i. That the complainant has come into
| court with unclean hands
2. That the complainant has no prop
| erty right that can be protected by in.
| junction, because of having sold the con.
| tinuous quotations to four telegraph COM
| panies.
| g. That there can be no decree adju.
| dicating the rights in the absence of the
| telegraph companies as parties. to either
| the parties complainant or defendant tc
| the action.
4 In his opinion, these contentious canno,
/ be maintained against the complainant