The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-05-30
NEW LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL
SUPREME COURT SUSTAINS THE
ANTI-BUCKET SHOP ACT.
Full Text of the Opinion i'm the McGin-
mis- Case-Verdict of the Lower
Court is Declared to be Without
Error,
raleigh Post }

Jhe Supreme court in opinions
handed down Tuesday holds that the
anti bucket shop act passed by the
last legislature is constitutional. There
are two opinions. one in State VS.. Nc
f5innis. from Wake. and the other in
State VS.. Clayton from Person. In
State VS.. McGinnis the court holds
thar the act of 1905 forbiding the bus
mess of opening or establishing what
is known a. a bucket shop is consti-
t%utional. And in State VS.. Clayton 4
is held hat section Z of the act CT
1906 does not authorize manufacture
ers and wholesale dealers t. gamble
in futures but merely that when they
buy commodities necessary in the
course Of the ordinary conduct of
their business for future delivery no
presumption arises that such Durchas-
rs are for gambling from
the fact that such purchases are
made on margins.
1t was the case against McGinnis
that involved the most vital points in
question and was most hard fought.
counsel being Pusbee and Rusbee and
-ArgO and Shaffer for the defendant
and Attorney General Gilmer of the
state. There was also the appeal of
state VS.. Gatewood. also from Person
county. The three were argued Joint
" eli appeal but there was no opinion
from the court in the Gatewood case.
that going off per curtain on the rul-
ings N the McGinnis and h Clayton
@ses. The opinion of the court in the
TcGinnis case is given below:
OPINION IN McCINNIS CASE.
CLARK. c. J.. This is an indictment
under Chapter 538 Laws 1905 ito
prevent dealing in futures"
Fly Chapter 221 Laws of 1889 ito
and prevent certain kinds
of vicious contracts" it was in sub
stance enacted as follows: Section
one made void all contracts for the
sale of articles therein named for fu-
ture delivery. wherein (nothWith-
standing any terms used) it is not
intended thai the articles agreed to
be sold and delivered. but only the
difference between h contract price
and the market value at the time stip-
ulated shall be paid. Section two en-
acted that when the defense provid-
ell by that act is set I'D in a verified
answer. the burden shall be upon the
plaintiff to prove a lawful contract,
bu- the answer shall not be used
against the defendant on an indict-
ment for the transaction. Section
three made The parties to such con-
tract. and agents concerned therein.
indictable. and section four made per-
sons While in this state conserving TO
become parties to such contract,
made in another state. and all agents
in this state. aiding n furtherlng
such contract. made in another state.
indictable.
CHAPTER 538 Laws 1905 provides:
Section l. That it shall be unlawful TO
open or establish an office in this
state for dealing in futures. Section
9 makes such act a
Section 3 provides that no person par
ticipating in such act shall be excused
from testifying. but q party so testify
ing is p~ardoned for such otfense. sec
ton 4 specifies certain acts Whlch
shall be prima facie evidence Of a ylo-
lation of this statute. Section 5 spe-
cities what shall be prima facle evil
dence of a contract forbidden by the
Act Of 1889. and section g PROVIDES
what shall be Drima facie proof Of the
opening and establishing an office in
violation Of this act and of the act OF
1885.
So far the provisions of both acts
clearly fall within the police power Of
the state. and it is not denied that II
further appeared in the stat
ute. the defendant is guilty upon the
facts found in the special verdict.
which are that the defendant opened
and established an office in Raleigh
for the purpose of carrying on the
forbidden by the above cited
statutes. Laws 1889. Oh. 221. and Laws
1905. Oh. 13S.
The business forbidden by the act
1905 iS-tO avoid Dariph1OSls OF the
Of running a bucket shop.
which is defined by the Century Die
tionary as IAN establishment. NOM
inally for the transaction Of a stock
L,,~innoc ~ llIc:nnGS nf n
character, but really for the
registration of bets. or wagers. usually
for small amounts. on the rise or fall
of the prices of ock grains. oil. etc.
there being no transfer or delivery of
the stock or commodities m
in In Beard of Trade of chi
vs.. Odell Commission Co.. lis
Rep. 574. the president Of the
Board of Trade. in answer to a cues
ton. thus defined a bucket shop"
is a place where dealings are had
upon the fluctuations in the market
price. without n bonafde transact
The definition of bucket
shcD' in Webster's Dictionary is: "An
Office or place where facilities are Civ
for betting small sums on current
prices of stocks. petroleum. etc.
In Smith VS.. Tel. Co. "a Ky. 664. the
court describes the manner of dealing
a bucket shop in full detail. n
defines It's business. while Durportlng
30 be actual TRANSACTIONS as belng" IN
fact merely wagers on h market
price CT some commodity. at some spe-
Ciefled time in the future and the
absence there OF n statute. held
that such business was "a species of
gambling as we'll defined and repre-
as that of keeping a faro bank
or a dice machine. and it is therefore
illegal n contrary to public policy"
bucket shop is defined (Bryant VS..
Tel. Co. Il Fed. Rep. S25 and Forten-
aury VS.. State. Al Ark. 1922 as "a
place where wagers are made upon
the fluctuations in price of grain n
other commodities and in both cases
the course of dealings at such estab-
lishment is fully described as in Smith
Tel. Co. supra, but in all these
cases. of course. solely upon the infor- |
given the learned Judges by
the testimony Of witnesses. set out in |
the ecor6
In Weare VS.. People. 209 ILL.,. SIS is |
a recent. full and able discussion of
against bucket shops sus-