The New York herald., 1844-10-10
NEW YORK. THURSDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 10, 1874.
'rrsrer Arronsrr-oh, ws'll admi. that and not de-

DISTRICT ArroRssy-oh we'l admit that and not de-
| tain the Mayor.
| REcoapER-Is the closed now, gentlemen
DsrRleI ATrehskY.-i have merely to say that Mt
Cooley acted as any man would. who was called black
guard and liar IN letter. and that Gddon also acted as
| any man would, whose father had been slandered.
The REcoRpkE then submitted the case merely re
marking that neither ords, leers publications
justified violation Of the law by personal violence a
though the jury the judges of the law and the fact
The jury retired and returned Ia about fifteen minutes
with verdict OF guilty under aggravated circumstan
ces" which afterwards explained as to mean tha,
the assault and battery was committed BY the accused
under circumstances that partially jus,hedh.
The Court stated that sentence would be imposed on
Friday next
a charge OF grand larceny for stealing Sl65 from sailor
named Nicholas Wheelan, at the house OF Ann Willets,
man named VIM Miles, and woman named Ann Wal
etts the latter Of whom convicted ut the last term
Of the Court The testimony Of the sailor having eesn
swore positively to the commission OF the act oy accused
rhe defence conducted by James NJ. Smith, Jr, and
Enoch Camp, Esqrs, produced testimony 10 reiute the
statements OF the complainant and Collins was honoraby
acquitted without the Jury leaving their seats.
False Prefences - George X. Morris tried on
charge OF obtaining $5u0 from John g. Kingsord on
sixty casks Of cheese as collateral having gwen his
notes not paid The jury acquitted him.
The Court meets this morning at eleven o'clock
Circuit Court.
Before Judge Kent.
Oor. 9-Elisha Kuek,aan vs.. Stacy PiicherThe Sport
This case was resumed. he our was crowded with
many spectators who seemed to take lively interest IN
the result The testimony OF the Witness Mr.. Thomas
Babes, who the only witness examined yesterday,
having established the facts Of the and the winning
the and asG RsaSv s
Mr Blunt moved for nonsut on the ground that the
evidence for the plaintiff showed that other parties were
interested in the alleged bet The nonJolnder OF MT
Crosby and others, who interested he considered
fatal the issue before the Court The second ground
Of motion for non suit that this being action OF
i
parties should have been joined and at the OF the
year in question there was regular course which made
the race legal one Another ground was, that there
was no demand, and there should have been demand
made by law to return the money He also moved, on
general grounds, Tor non-suit.
The Court overruled, subject to the objection which
was noted The Counsel engaged here withdrew aud
Mr.. De WITr opened the for the defence. Tne
case ma out for the plaintiff, he submitted did not sub
ject the defendant under action Tor debt
The first witness called was
Mr. EccLEs GiLLEsDAR, exsmined by MIR BLUNT
yesterday was the occasion OF the race be-
tween Lady Suffolk" and "Americus," and saw Mr.
Babes in the judges chair had conversation with
him.
Mr.. BLUNT here apnlied for leave to recal Mr. Babes
MIR. BRApy objected
The CouRT overruled the objection, when
THOMAS BABEs recalled
To MIR BLUNT-i declared in the presence ot Mr.
Giendar that Interested to the amount Of $780, in
the
Mr.. GrLLEsDaR recalled-examined by Mr. BLUNT
Babes me and said he was the amount
G CosseIamned by Mr. Brady 81 had no interest In the
race saw on the occasion Mr. spiser and Mr.
Bryan in the dress which is usually worn by gentle
men who drive in troiting matches.
Mr.. EDWARD WHITE was produced for the defence, and
John Cenkiin, the part of Amercus, and Mr. Ruck-
man, the plaintiff, on the part OF Lady Suffolk, which
agree nent was in writing.
present at had between Mr.. Ruckman ana
Nh. Pitcher, when the demand made Tor the amount
Of theiw $3uO which was handed over TO the wn-
by the defendant.
Mr.. GEo srrcgu, who drove "Amercus," was prOduc
ed and examined by Mr. Blunt. had a conversation
with Mr. Ruckman last Spring, when he told me the only
nteresfihe had in that race was 5000
Cross erainedby Mr.. Brady-i had interest Of 500
Mr. GEORGE CRosB, testified to his having had $50 in
erest in the race and to having authorized The SUIT
Mr. ENGLISH testified TO his having had 500 interest
IN the race. and did not authorize the suit
The for the defence here rested, when counsel
summed up.
HIS Honor charged the juryThe present is a csse IN
which the tact could not be disguised that there was
natural repugnance in relation 10 Of this Kind,
which required sound determination, no matter how
strongly may feel the subject o the dangerous
practice Of gambling. Here is action brought TO re-
cover money deposited wager, ON the event oia
race 1t was conceded that otting match took
place in Oct lS4i the Centeville Course and The
question is, was that illegal wager find that,
az lar back as 1902, our legislature took care that
all racing and trotting matches should DO put down
is common nuisance and authorised that u should
be punished by fine and imprisonment; they also
declared that II any person should usseor employ any
aorse mare or geldng IN racing should DC punished
contract entered in relation racing should be null and
void The next act, in 1921, declared that they would
allow regular training in the County OF Queens and re-
leased the IRON the very strict penalty imposed
by the act Of 1902 The Legislature by the act OF 1921
allowed horse racing TO take place in the County oi
Queens in the months OF May and October but have
idea that hualtaring the statute, they contempa-
ted by the introduction Of that law that bets were to be
allowed In the racing the parties were thus
1902 but all they by the introduction OF the law as
amended was allow racing to tnks place IN order to
he reed a horse cxisf
ence to this day After that act passed. then comes
the Revised Statutes which expressly declare that
All wagers, bets, stakes made to depend on
any race, all gaming and all betting, H. unlaw.
,ui," and it also emPnatically snd expressly proh-
makes sll betting unlawful and also expressly declares
that all contracts which may be made relation to bet
ting may be void II also provides that mo person
shall pay deliver any monies such contracts; and
any may for and recover the same nom the win
any other whether the money shall be paid
placed.n Now, gentlemen, have doubt, under the
plain and simple wording OF this statute, that any money
by rhsIs the su and amy
person that runs may read. The question, then for
you to consider is il this man, Ruekman, deposited
any money he has right to recover. lfyou are salts
fled In your minds as to the fact o the amount Of
deposit by Ruckman, you arc bound to fnd 70 the
full amount The first witness proved this fact but
the second WITNESS Glendar has contradicted him in
fact which IL important namely, that he understood
him to say he was interested TO the amount oi Sooo
appears however from other testimony that contract
made between the pares-thst II was made IN the
name Of John Concklin-that there bet made on
this Courtwrgh tells thst he was present when
application made by the winner for the money,
who asked plaintiff had any objection when he replied
he had not, nll ight. The money was hersupon
handed over and gentlemen you must determine, alter
this question: whether or no the money wes deposited
The question here, then to whether that
legal There two defences here. One is that other
interested in this Wh respect tina,
point suppose the law TO be thisf other persons
interested they to be considered pTinci
pal and the would be decided in this way that the
party so interested was moral agent The case has
been decided by the Supreme Court The other point
Of defence urged is, that ii Is ha where stake
holder is made liable can't find any ything TO sanction
this opinion. Ia England. In the reign Charles III.
Second WAS A. IN be In