The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-03-09
COTTON CONTRACTS BINDING.
THOSE WHO SELL FOR FUTURE
DELIVERY MUST COMPLY.
Judge Brawley's Charge I'm the Case OF
Sprunt ". Hurst-Strceter Co. I'm
Which He Laid Down the Law.

against Carpenter. reported in SO Fed
Rep. Is conclusive as 20 my duty in
this case. There Is no motion on be-
half OF the defendants that the court
direct a verdict in favor of the defen-
dants In the cause Of action. and that
IL should further direct a verdict in
favor OF the defendants for the sum
OF S1.6S750. the amount paid in
money on 25th of October. The case
OF Springs VS.. Carpenter vas tried
before me at Greenville. 1t arose out
OF a transaction on the New York Cot
ton Exchange. was of opinion then,
and my opinion has not changed
since. that nine out of ten, may say
ninety-nine one-hundredths out of one
hundred. of the transactions upon the
New York Cotton Exchange are gam
bling contracts; that they are nothing
more than wdgers upon the future
price of cotton. and although in FORM
by the rules OF the New York Cotton
Exchange, there was an agreement
actually to deliver and actually to re-
ceive the cotton, yet. as a matter OF
fact. do not believe that in one case
out OF hundred there was ever an
intention to receive or to deliver ac-
tual cotton. Consequently, 1 left that
question for the jury to say whether
IL believed there was an actual bona
fide intention to deliver cotton, and
the jury found in that case, and. /
think, properly found. that there was
no such bona fide selling and buying
OF actual cotton. and that Ii was a
wagering contract, void at common
law, void under the very stringent
statute Of South Carolina. I am In
thorough sympathy with the object OF
that legislation. and would, so far as
said was the intention Of that legisla-
ton In this case. uproot these gam
bling In future contracts. That case
was carried TO the Court OF Appeals
and the facts In II are much stronger
on the side Of the defendant than any
OF the facts proved in this case, and
the Court Of Appeals decided that II
was the duty OF the court on the tes-
timony I'm that case. to direct a ver-
dict for the plaintiff.
Now. this suit here isson contract
OF May. II. 1909. between the Hurst
Streator Company on the oae part
and Alexander Sprunt & Son. on the
other part. The testimony is. ana n
is n matter OF notoriety. even without
testimony to satisfy me OF the truth
OF II. that Alexander Sprunt & Son
are large dealers In actual cotton, IN
the city OF Wilmington. which Is prob
ably the nearest port TO Cheraw, in
the State of South Carolina; that thsy
were buyers and exporters of cotton
I'm large amounts; that they had their
agents all through this country, who
octbhb Notboh loI lnSHl, anu Hdue
contracts for them for future delivery
OF cotton. There is nothing in the
law OF South Carolina, and there Is no
law anywhere that 1 know of which
makes illegal or immoral transactions
OF Ihe kind set forth In this contract.
A contract for the future delivery Of
cotton Is as valid as any other con-
tract, provided II Is q bona fde con-
tract. and IL the parties intend on the
one part to buy and on the other part
20 sell and to deliver the actual cot
ton. Now, on its face. and in all the
circumstances which have been de-
tailed In the testimony. there is not
doubt I'm my mind that this was
bona fie transactlon;. that Sprunt &
Son intended 20 buy. and that Hurst
Streator Company. who were dealers
In cotton, intended actually to deliver
the 800 bales of cotton mentioned in
this agreement. The same is true as
TO the other two contracts. 100 bales
each. one dated I'm May and the other
In June. There is testimony as TO
what occurred at the time when the
contracts were entered into. Certain