The practice on the part of various speculators on the market of not buying shares to sell, but to gamble in differences was referred to by Magistrate Kuan and Mr. Black turn at the Mixed Court last Friday, in giving a verdict for the defendant in a case involving $11,990.40. Koo Zung-kyl sought to recover from Dzung Wei-ching, a broker in the Chartered Stock & Produce Exchange, this sum, alleged to have been deposits in connexion with, and the profits on, certain share transactions made at plaintiff's request.
In giving judgement, the. Asscssor said that on December 5, 1921, plaintiff sold 50 old shares for Devember delivery, 50 new shares for January delivery, and 50 old shares for February delivery.: On the following day he sold 50 more old shares for February delivery. On December 15 he bought back 50 old shares, December delivery, at a profit of $115. On January 19_ hel bought back 50 new shares for January delivery, at a loss of $150. On February 18 he bought back 50 old shares, February delivery, at a loss of $3,340. Plaintiff alleged that these were the only trans-} actions and that after taking ac-: count of the various sums of money paid by him to defendant and brokerage, there remained a balance in his favour of $11,990.40. Defendant, however, stated that there was a further transaction, on February 23, when plaintiff: bought back 50 old shares for February delivery at a loss of $2,950, leaving a balance due to plaintiff of only $658.
It was perfectly clear—in spite of plaintiffs denial—that when plaintiff sold shares for December, January and February delivery he was speculating. He had' no shares to dispose of and there never was any intention as between plaintiff and defendant that any scrip should pass. No scrip had in fact' changed hands in respect of any of; the transactions. Plaintiff's story that he had the scrip, but preferred} to pay out large sums to meet the settlement rather than part with the scrip he held, was simply unbelievable.
The first time any scrip was tendered was on February 28, after the February settlement, when the 50 shares supposed to have been sold on December 6 were tendered to defendant by plaintiff's counsel. By that time, however, the market had gone to pieces. Those shares were purchasable at a very low price. The tender was clearly an after-thought, and can certainly not be considered as a fulfilment by
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.