1;2 FEDERAL mzronrmz. -
be taken ofthe amount of that loss, and that they pay the amount when
‘ ascertained to the 01‘3tO1f,VWltl'l costs; and that the bill be dismissed as
tothe defendants Edward A. Sowles and Hall-, without costs. ‘
n WARD *0. VOSBURGH. Y , N i V
·   \ t` N (Circuit {Court, E. D. Wscomn. May, 1887.)
1. Conirnicror LAwsLCoNrié.t’crs—GnM1ne. ` l I ‘ ‘ ` 4
The rule laid down in Barnard v. Backhaao, 52 Wis. 593; 6 N. W.` Rep. 252,
V _ and}? N. W. Rep. 595, that, ‘fto uphold Va contract, for a sale and delivery of
· gra-in at a future date forarprice certain, it mustainrmatively and satisfac-
.t; itorily appear that the, contract was made with an actual view to the delivery _
., .and,rece1pt.0f grain, and not as an evasion of the Wisconsin statute against
gaining; or a cover for a g mbling transactio‘n," does not apply to _an action
~   nithe federal courts in that state by a broker, resident in Il inois, to recover
‘ ~. udvancestand commissions growing out of orders given him bty a citizen. of
V Wisconsin, to be executed on the door of the Chicago Board 0 Trade, The
rights of the parties to such`-a suit are governed by t e laws of illinois. ` ‘
2. lC0NTRACT`B—GAMING~—OPTI(lNS—INTENT-LBURDEN or PROOFl·¥LIKBILITY ron
;e Coumssrorzs Ann Anvsnoissr 2 ,   - —— l ’
__ j , Ung,§r.,the.Illinois statutes, a simple option, reserved by the seller to him-
—” self, ‘ *·to time of delivery of property within certain limits, and the settle-
~‘ = `mentéof differencesupon such a contract, does not render the contract void
,. as agaxnbling,transaction., The, burden of proof, in an action on such a con-
V tract by a broker for commissions and advances for settlements made by the
"‘ ringing up" process, istherefore upon the defendant to show the gambling
intent; and it does not follow, from the fact that he himself intended no des
. V livery, that such was the intention of the broker and of the other principal, —
. ` or that deliveries were not made as a matter of fact. ,
3. Cusrou Ann 'Us.aen—“Rmeme U1="—GAM1N¤.
. The custom `of “ringing-up," in vogue among brokers and commission
qmerchazits, is founded in commercial convenience, and when not adopted to
V promotea gambling transaction, is not incontravention of the law.
. 4. SAME-Errnor o;r—Es*ro1=r·n1.. V ` , ·
` A stpeculatoriwho is familiar with the methods and usages of the Chicago
Boar :of`Trade is presumed, upon giving orders to his broker, a member of
that body, to contract with reference thereto; and he will not be heard to set
up, as a defense to a suit by the broker for commissions and aclvancesythat
the `customprevailing there, inobedience to which the advances were made,
' enlarged his liability under the contract. » ,
AtlLaw.   .. . A ,.   _ ·  
Joseph. Wright and Shepard &: Shepard, for plaintiff. V
Quarleercfs Speiwe, for defendant. · ‘ ;
Drnn, J .- _4,This is undoubtedly a hard case forlthe defendant, and,
if the court could.- see itsw-way clear to relieve him from the liability
which is sought ,to be enforced against him, it would beglad -to do so.
So many decisions have been rendered by various courtstupon the par-
ticular question we have here to decide, in which may be found the ex-
pressionof conflicting views, that it is not easy to arrive at a conclusion
unattended,,with doubts. One proposition is well settled, namely, that