e 16 rnnansr. nnroirrnn.
make thecontract void asa gambling transaction. The proofs must
goéfurther, and atlirmatively show that it was not the intention of either
seller ‘or 'buyer, {when the? contract was made, to deliver any property;
and this is not proves by showing merely the intention of one party,
even coupled with the intention of his agent representing him in the
transaction. In the case at bar, some of the property was actually
delivered and paid for. lnother instances `there was a payment of dit`-
Lferences. _The actual delivery of someof the property is afact which
j goes 'to uphold the transaction in question as lawful and valid. The
liners fact that in other instances therewas a settlement of differences, is
4not‘sufi·icient to show an originalintention of both- seller and buyer,
"1when‘ the contracts were made, not to deliver any property. This being
the state; of the case, I do notsee howthecontracts entered into ·by the
` f defendant through his broker, the plaintiH`," can be held to be gamb-
*1ihg transactions', unlessit be so inferred from the methods in which, in
some instances, a settlementwas made as a basisffor "arriving at differ- p
‘“’énces.“f   · i Y "’     · · *    e »
f   ‘,Gla¢*ke v. Foss, supra,thie "”ringing up? process iscornmented upon,
"ahd'shown to be in and of itself a legitimate method of adjusting diner- o
ences, in accordance with the rulesof business prevailing in the clear-
ing-houses ofthe country. _ A _ “ ` V A   » M `
  ‘',‘ In Wtlliar rv. ’ Irwin', supra, it was said ‘ ·by Judge 4GI?.ESHAM in his
1 charge tothe jury: ‘ " ~ I ‘ · I ·
_   V "'I‘he. testimony tends to show that a general custom obtained among grain
_Qcommission merchants in Baltimore to the following effect: When one com- _
’mission merchant, upon the order of a customer, sells to another commission
·‘merchant a quantity of grain for future delivery, and it occurs that at some
,other time before the maturity of the contract the same commission merchant
‘; receives an order fromanother customer to purchase the same or a larger
_ quantity of the same kind of grain, for the same future delivery, and he exe-
" elites this second order by making the purchase from the same commission .
lrnerchantto whom hehad made the sale in the other case, that then, in such
i ease, thetwo commission merchants meet together, and exchange or cancel
itheiecntiactsv as-“‘between themselves, adjusting the difference in the prices
between the two contracts, and restoring any margins that may have been
but up; and fromythat time forth Uthegfirst commission merchant holds for the
benefit of thecustomer for whom he sold the order or contract of the pur·
`chaser for whom he bought, so that the grain of the selling customer may, wnen
ldelivered,’be iturnediin on theorder or contract of thepurchasing customer, -
and that the commission merchant is held responsible as guarantor to his o·us~
tomer. The evidence also tends to show a custom obtained among commis-
.-sion merchants in Baltimore to the further effect that, though the second
., transaction may have been had with adinerent commission merchant from
V the one with which the first transaction was had, yet where it can befound
that a series of contracts are in existence for the sale of like grainfor like de-
llivery, sothat the seller owes the wheat to the buyer to whom he sold, and he
‘ to another who owes like wheat for like delivery to the first commission mer-
chant, that,tlien,iin such case, they settle by what they call a • ring,’ that is,
they all reciprocally surrender orcancel their contracts, adjust diiferences in
, price between themselves, and surrender all margins that have been put up;
that in all such cases the commission merchant substitutes the contractof
anothercustomer in place of that with thecommission merchant whose con-