Fullerton v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1902 |
| Citation | 75 S.W. 534 |
| Parties | FULLERTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Hunt County Court; R. D. Thompson, Judge.
Harvey Fullerton was convicted of dealing in futures, and he appeals. Affirmed.
L. A. Clark, Craddock & Looney, and Harkless, O'Grady & Crysler, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged with conducting and carrying on a business commonly known as "dealing in futures," etc., and that he did then and there keep a house, and manage, conduct, and carry on and transact therein a business commonly known as a produce or stock exchange and as a bucket shop, where future contracts were bought and sold with no intention of an actual bona fide delivery of the articles and things so bought and sold. The contention is that the evidence does not show a violation of the statute. The facts, which are rather voluminous, show that appellant opened a business in Greenville, Hunt county, where he bought and sold futures in cotton and wheat; that he acted as the agent of the purchasers and sellers; that he had connections East, and perhaps in Kansas City, with the Christi Bros.; that these orders were taken and telegraphed to New York and New Orleans for cotton futures, and to Chicago for grain futures; that he was not himself buying and selling, but simply acted as the agent of the purchasers and vendors. The business was carried on, it seems, as are the ordinary shops of that sort. That, where the purchasers of the futures would place the money with him and his firm, they would telegraph and place their offer. If the offer was accepted, he would notify the purchasers. The record shows no failure to secure a placing of the offer. He would keep the parties posted of the fluctuations of the market, and, where there was a change, these parties were required to put up margins or place more money to prevent forfeiture of their contracts. They did not have any cotton themselves, and did not control any, and made no contracts and sold no contracts on their own behalf. This evidently (and, it occurs to us, necessarily) indicated there would be no deliveries on their part. The contracts for the future delivery, if the delivery should ever occur, were to be had in the market where the contract was placed, and as appellant was but the agent of the purchasers or sellers, as the case might be, he never became responsible to them for the delivery of any cotton or grain, as his relation was simply that of a go-between. Article 377, Pen. Code, provides: "If any person shall, directly or through an agent or agents, manage or superintend for himself, or shall as agent or representative of any other person, firm or corporation, conduct, carry on or transact any business, which is commonly known as dealing in futures, in cotton, grain, lard, any kinds of meats or agricultural products, or corporation stocks, or shall keep any house or manage, conduct, carry on or transact any business commonly known as a produce or stock exchange, or bucket shop, where future contracts are bought and sold with no intention of an actual bona fide delivery of the article or thing so bought or sold, such person, whether acting for himself or for another, as aforesaid, shall be deemed guilty," etc. It occurs to us that, under this state of case, appellant has clearly brought himself within the provisions of this article of our Penal Code. It is clear from the testimony, as we understand it, that appellant was carrying on his business as the go-between, the agent, of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scales v. State
...W. 278; Cothran v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 36 S. W. 273. However, those cases on this question have been overruled in Fullerton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 75 S. W. 534. In accordance with that decision, it is no longer necessary to allege an actual Motion was also made to quash the indictm......
-
FULLERTON V. TEXAS
...of the Penal Code, and held, on a consideration of the facts, that Fullerton had clearly brought himself within and violated the statute. 75 S.W. 534. Fullerton thereupon moved for a rehearing, which motion was overruled. This application for rehearing assigned, among other grounds, that th......
-
De Lam v. State
...fide delivery" of the cotton on the part of Murphy and De Lam. The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. Fullerton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 75 S. W. 534. There are no bills of exception in the record. However, appellant insists in motion for new trial that the court erred in not......