De Lam v. State

• Decision Date: 02 May 1906
• Citation: 95 S.W. 532
• Parties: DE LAM v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

95 S.W. 532

DE LAM v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1906.

Appeal from Gonzales County Court; W. W. Glass, Judge.

J. C. De Lam was convicted of dealing in futures, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. B. Green, for appellant. J. E. Yantis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and 30 days' confinement in the county jail, under an indictment charging, substantially, that appellant "did then and there unlawfully, as agent and representative of Gonzales Brokerage Company, which is a branch of the San Antonio Brokerage Company, dealers in futures, doing business in the city of Gonzales, state of Texas, under the firm name and style of Gonzales Brokerage Company, did unlawfully keep a house and did manage, conduct, carry on, and transact for said San Antonio Brokerage Company a business commonly known as a produce stock exchange and bucket shop, where future contracts in cotton were bought and sold, with no intention of an actual bona fide delivery of the said cotton so bought and sold, and the said J. C. De Lam, as the agent of said firm, San Antonio Brokerage Company, did then and there sell future contracts in cotton to one J. M. Murphy, with the understanding that there should be no actual bona fide delivery of the cotton so contracted for and stipulated as having been bought and sold in said future contracts," etc.

Appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction, because there was no evidence adduced to show "defendant had no intention of an actual bona fide delivery." State's witness Murphy testified: "I bought 50 bales of cotton from De Lam, who was acting as agent for the Gonzales Brokerage Company. * * * I never intended to receive the actual 50 bales of cotton, but made the contract as a speculation, * * * and an actual delivery was not contemplated, but only a payment of the difference between the contract price and the value of the cotton at the time agreed upon as the date of delivery. If the price of cotton went up I would make, and if it went down I would lose. I never received the cotton. I paid $2 per bale as a margin to De Lam." Witness admitted signing a contract, which stated that actual delivery was contemplated, but did not consider that a part of the contract. Defendant, De Lam, testified in his own behalf that he was the agent of the Gonzales Brokerage Company, a branch of the San Antonio Brokerage Company....