Chicago Pub. Stock Exch. v. McClaughry

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Citation: 36 N.E. 88,148 Ill. 372
• Parties: CHICAGO PUBLIC STOCK EXCHANGE v. McCLAUGHRY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

148 Ill. 372

36 N.E. 88

CHICAGO PUBLIC STOCK EXCHANGE

v.McCLAUGHRY.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 16, 1894.

Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Bill by the Chicago Public Stock Exchange against Robert W. McClaughry. Defendant obtained a decree, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Complainant appeals. Affirmed.Edward H. Morris, for appellant.

Adolf Kraus and Sigmund Zeisler, for appellee.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by MAGRUDER, J.:

This is a bill filed on March 9, 1892, by the appellant against the appellee, and the following is a statement of the substance of the bill, as set out in the abstract of the record filed in this court by the appellant. Bill alleged incorporation February, 1892, of appellant, under the law of this state, and that it was incorporated for the purpose of ‘collecting and publishing market quotations, and furnishing facilities for trading in bonds, stocks, securities, grain, pork, farm and dairy produce of all kinds, and to buy and sell grain, pork, farm and dairy products of all kinds, on commission.’ Further alleges that in March, 1892, it leased a large hall at 126 Washington street, Chicago, and fitted the same up ‘for a place where brokers and traders might meet for the purpose of carrying on their business, and with the intention and for the purpose of renting to brokers and traders desk room in said hall, and furnishing to them facilities for carrying on their business, including the market quotations, as made from day to day on the New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade, and various other exchanges throughout the country, of bonds, stocks, grain, pork, etc.’ Also, alleges that it, appellant, did sublet and lease to various persons, firms, and corporations desk room in said hall, and that said hall has been since March 10, 1892, used for the aforesaid purposes, and no other, and that said hall is occupied solely by brokers and commission merchants lawfully and legally engaged in buying and selling stocks, bonds, grain, pork, and produce. Alleges that complainant is no wise engaged in conducting any bucket shop, pool room, or game of chance or gambling device of any kind; that it has never bought or sold a dollar's worth of stock or grain or produce, and that its sole business is the subletting of said hall, and that its sole profit is derived from the subletting of said hall; that said hall is open at all times to the public, who have free access thereto; that, in fitting up said hall, complainant caused to be put in said hall a telegraph instrument connected with the Western Union Telegraph Company's wires, which instrument, called a ‘ticker,’ and the wires, furnished the price of stock, bonds, etc., as quoted from day to day on the New York Stock Exchange, etc., and complainant also caused to be put in said hall electric lights, etc., furnished by the Electric Light Company of Chicago. Alleges that Robert W. McClaughry, acting through his subordinates, etc., on March 17, 1892, took forcible possession of said hall, separated the wires connected with said telegraph instrument, cut the wire running to the electric lamps, and took possession of and carried away the private letters, statements, accounts, and other property of complainant and others occupying said hall, and notified such persons and tenants he would continue to raid said hall, and carry away their letters, statements, and other property, so long as they should persist in attempting to do business in said hall. Shows that defendant threatens to again take possession of said hall, and to continue to do so so long as complainant, by its tenants, continues to occupy said hall, and will do so unless restrained; that by reason of such conduct on the part of said defendant the rental value of said premises is depreciated, and complainant prevented from renting portions of said hall, which it would otherwise be able to rent, and is continually harassed and annoyed in the conduct of its business, to its great and irreparable damage, which damage cannot be exactly measured or ascertained. Waives answer under oath. Prayer for injunction restraining defendant from ‘interfering with your orator's peaceable possession of said hall, and your orator's property in said hall.’ The answer to said bill, as it appears in said abstract, is as follows: ‘Admits incorporation of complainant. Denies that complainant fitted up the hall for the purpose alleged in its bill. Denies that complainant leases or sublets to various firms for the purpose of carrying on a lawful or legitimate business. Denies that the hall is occupied solely by brokers or commission merchants engaged in buying or selling stocks. Admits that said hall has an open and public entrance, and that all persons have free access thereto, and that complainant placed in said hall a ticker connected with telegraph wire furnished by the Western Union Company for the purpose of supplying said premises with market quotations, as alleged in the bill, but denies that complainant fitted up the hall for lawful purposes,and alleges that the complainant was organized for the purpose of enabling it and other persons to carry on gaming, and to keep and run a gaming house. Alleges, on information and belief, that said hall, shortly after it was fitted up, was taken possession of by divers well-known ‘sports and gamblers,’ under a pretended lease, and that since March, 1892, said hall has been openly and publicly used as an ordinary gaming house, with complainant's knowledge; that while the current quotations of the market price of grains, etc., have been posted on a large blackboard, and pretended sales of stock and grain may have been made, such is a mere incident to the business of making bets (in the shape of pretended purchases) on the rise and fall of certain fictitious or bogus mining stocks, such prices having been previously prepared; that such mining stocks have no value, and the prices are not controlled by the public demand or supply, nor the genuine market prices, but only the arbitrary prices placed upon the same for the purpose of betting. Alleges that the pretended buying and selling of mining stocks, based on the arbitrary prices made in advance, is the main business of complainant. Avers that at the time of the filing of complainant's bill there was in force in the city of Chicago an ordinance, No. 1,867, 1,307, [ordinance set out in full,] prohibiting the keeping or setting of certain games, enumerating them as ‘E. O. A. B. C., rooley-pooley, keno, or faro table, faro bank, roulette, or other instrument, device, or thing;’ also, No. 1,868, 1,308, prohibiting any person from engaging in any of the above games; No. 1,867, which provides that it shall be the duty of members of the police force to give information, of games, etc., and to take lawful means to suppress the same, and to obtain warrants for the arrest of all persons. No. 1,873 makes it the duty of all members of the police force to seize any table, instrument, device, or thing used for the purpose of gaming, and destroy the same. Alleges that divers persons, with complainant's knowledge, had repeatedly been found in, and betting and keeping, a gambling house in said premises, and admits that on March 17, 1892, defendant caused various persons found in said hall to be arrested, and that defendant's officers, in making such arrests, took possession of the instrument, tapes, tickers, statements of accounts, lists of stocks, and other property. Admits that defendant intends to ‘again raid’ said premises.' A replication was filed to the answer. After the overruling of a motion for a continuance, a decree was entered reciting that the cause came on to be heard upon the pleadings and ‘upon proofs offered in open court,’ and, after argument by counsel for the respective parties, ordering a dissolution of the injunction theretofore granted, and dismissing the bill for want of equity. The appellate court has affirmed said decree, and the present appeal is prosecuted from such judgment of affirmance. The only certificate of evidence in the record contains the motion for a continuance, and the affidavits filed upon the hearing of said motion. There is no certificate of evidence showing what proof was introduced upon the hearing upon the merits.

MAGRUDER, J., (after stating the facts.)

The only error insisted upon by counsel for appellant, and argued in his brief, is the action of the circuit court in overruling the motion for a continuance. The motion for a continuance was based upon an affidavit made by the president of the appellant corporation, from which it appears that the principal or senior counsel of the...