Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1867-03-19

reason for making out complaint
inconsistent with facts, withal every
inducement for framing complaint
which should include the fact that he
bet his money against Covers mons
ely. And had bis complaint been
framed according to the facts he
must have recovered. But as the
statute rule of limitations forbids
any enhancement Of suit for recov-
cry under any other complaint, the
af1air q ended
The following is a true copy Of the
charge of Judge Mills, after the hear
ing Of which the jury retired and
brought in averdict for the defend
ant:
The plaintiff in this action sues the
defendant on IA complaint, setting
forth in substance that he, the plain
tiff, and J. G. Cover, on the 9th No
yember, 1864, made bet upon the
termination Of the war within GER
ain time, in case Mr.. Lincoln should
be elected-Cdver betting 800 that
the war would terminate within that
time, and Moore betting 500 that it
you'd not. The plaintiff sets forth
further in his complaint that he de~
posted no money that day with the
stakeholder, Holloway y, the defend
ant; but that he deposited his note,
dated on the day OF the bet, payable
enc year after date to the defendant,
Or order, for the sum of$1QO, with in
terest at seven per cent; that Cover
TdepoSiteT with the same etalx ehoIder,
the defendant, one hundred dollars in
money. The note ofthe plaintiff and
the money were to be disposed Of ac-
cordine to the terms Of the betting
contract. The complaint further ais
leges that the defendant, or stalker
holder, contrary to the terms of the
betting contract, endorsed the said
note to J. G.. Cover, and that Cover
endorsed it Co Augustine, in whose
hands the note was transferred be-
fore it was due FOR valuable cons
sideration, and that the plaintiff had
paid to Augustine the amount Of said
note before the commencement of this
action.
The testimony on the part of the
plaintiff fully sustains all the material
allegations of his complaint. If you
credit this testimony, you must find
in his favor. If the defendant, Hollo-
way, knew that the note was de-
posted with him as stake on bet,
it was his duty to have delivered itup
to Moore; if lie passed it off so as to
reach a bona tide holder, SO that
Moore was compelled to pay it, he is
answerable in this action to the plains
tiff. Thestatute makes.a stakeholder
responsible to the depositor, no diff,
ference which party may win the bet.
1t is the duty of tho stakeholder to
deliver up the money, on property bet
to the party depositing it, without re-
gard to the betting contract. IF be
does not, he is answerable to the de-
position for the property or its value
If the facts alleged in the plaintiff
complaint have been proven in sub
stance to your satisfaction, he is en-
titled to your verdict; if the mott
which has been produced in court and
paid by Moore was the stake which
he placed in the defendants hands
then he is entitled to recover its
amount in this action. On the con.
trary, if this note was not deposited
as stake with defendant, but if ths
note belonged to ]. G. Cover as So
curity for money loaned by Cover t6
Moore, to enable Moore to make his
deposite, then it was the duty Of the
defendant on demand to deliver the
note up to Cover. This note as be-
tween Cover and Moore would pro-
badly bevoid but that makes no DIFF
ference in the case; clearly the defend
ant might deliver up the note to
Cover if it was security for money
lent by him, without being response
bic for any use Cover might make Of
it. So if you believe from the tests
mony that the note produced in evi>
dence was not deposited with the de.
fendant by Moore as stake against
500 deposited by Cover, the plaintiff
cannot recover in this action. Ac~
cording to the testimony on the part
Of the defence, Moore deposited money
in stake-not a note. This money
Cover received from Holloway, and
if the action had been brought for the
money staked, the plaintiff would have
been entitled to recover on the def. &
testimony. In short, if you believe
with the plaintiff, that the note was
the stake, and which note the plain.
tiff has paid, then he is entitled to
recover. On the contrary, if you be,
lieve that the stake was money lent
by Cover to Moore, and which money
the defendant paid over to Cover
then the plaintiff cannot recover in
this action, but must sue the defend
ant for paying over that money tc
Cover.
nsA- Mr.. Robbins has introduced
into the Assembly a resolution which
he calls the Peoples Land Policy 0.
the State Of Wisconsin,. It propos-
es to ask the general government tc
cede to the State all the U. S. lands
in the State, remaining unsold thai
these lands shall be sold by the State
at from SO cents to $500 per acre
and $4,000 year for ten years be
given to each Of the charitable insti.
buttons of the State. and the balance
be distributed to railroad companies
These unsold lands amount to about