Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1870-09-20
More of the Betting Suits.

In the case Of Jones rs. Henkel,
| in the present term Of the Circuit
Court tn Jury returned a verdict in
favor of the defendant.
No one member of q combination
to seduce and defraud outsiders, can
come into court and compel his CO.
adjutor to surrender any part Of the
spoils. Neither the court nor the
jury were disposed to adiudicate be-
tween suitors Of that character, and
1T will be we'll for claimants to re-
member that applicants to courts Of
justice for redress, in order to be
successful must come into court
with clean hands.
That stringent laws to prevent
gambling in any form are necessary
to preserve tho morals of any COM
munity no one doubts and a strict
enforcement Of the laws against
stake holders as well as betters, is in
accordance with equity as well as
Justice. Still, we can conceive of
many cases in which men who oppose
gambling in any form, may be in
duced 70 become depositares of bet
money, while they condemn the
betting, and thus render themselves
amenable TO the law. although they
gain nothing in the transaction. As
a general principle bailces without
hire are not responsible except in
case OF neglect, and we think that
innocent shareholders might come
under . similar rule. Let the better
himself forfeit his money TO the
State or Town for public use, and
the amount Of bet money and the
number Of shareholders will become
rapidly diminished.
For the information Of many who
may not understand the law against
betting and especially the liability
Of shareholders we copy the charge
Of the court to the jury in the case
above mentioned:
CHARGE or THE COURT:
JAMES JoNEs, Plaintiff, vs. PETER HENKEL,
Defendant
In This action the plaintiff sues to recover
$40, which he testifes be bet with the defend
ant Oh Foot Race that took place near Lam
caster on the lth Of December last, the plain
tiff betting on one Crandall and the defendant
on Kelly Davis the money according to the
plaintiff 5 testimony ($40) was deposited in
the defendants hands Crandall was beaten,
and the defendant, Henkel, as Jones testifes,
still retains the money, although il appears
in evidence that Henke was notified before
ha on aVtaar fsft a..
the money to Jones. Jones testfes that three
bets were made with the defen dant-one bet
OF $50, and two Of $40 each. The defendant
would appear to be not only betting party,
but he held the money Jones bet against him.
Ii you credit the testimony of the plaintiff
in this action, and that the defendant was no
tilted before suit was brought 20 pay back the
money, the plaintiff will be entitled to YER
diet. In this State, a wise and beniEcent
statute prevents any loss or any gain through
the immoral and mischievous practice Of gam
ing and betting. Money staked may be recov-
cred at any time, within The special statute Of
limitations, Of the winning party. Money
can even be recovered Of stakeholder after he
has paid it over to the winning party under
the direction of the loser. The law discour-
ages betting by exposing the stakeholder to
an action, compelling him to surrender the
money TO the proper owners. The evidence
on behalf Of the plaintiff, if there is no sue
cessiul contradiction or defense, entities him
TO recover.
But the defendants evidence, and which he
attempts TO corrOborate by other testimony, is
in conflict with the plaintiffs testimony
The theory of the defense is, that a stranger
called Long John and the plaintiff confederated
together to get up sham bets, and thereby In
duce innocent persons TO risk their money on
the expected Foot Race this was effected
according TO the defendants theory, by Jones
furnishing money to Long John-the latter
would hand Il over to defendant, and then he, |
Long John, would bet either his own, or |
money borrowed of Jones, against the money |
he, Long John, had put in defendants hands. |
The defendant would then secretly return the |
money to Long John, and another sham bet
would take place, Long John pretending be-
fore the crowd to bet on Crandal and defend
ant pretending to bet Davis. The de-
PENDANT testihes that all the money he received
either from the hand of Jones or Long John,
amounting to $40, before the race was run,
and the same evening it was left with him was
paid over again TO Long John, and that the
plaintiff and Long John left the saloon in
company. II appears, il defendants state
menis are true, that the first ten dollars was
deposited with the defendant by Long John
he next borrows ten dollars Of Jones, and bets
it against the first ten, the twenty was next
returned to Long John by the defendant, and
Long John Immediately after puts the anne or
another $50 IN defendants hands. Long John
now goes and whispers with the plaintiff, and
the latter asks the defendant if he has another
$50 to bet The defendant answers in the
affirmative, then Jones and Long John came
up to the counter and they bet $50 against the
$50 then in the defendants hands Jones de-
posted the latter $50. Such is the substance
Of the defendants statements he further test
ifes, that the same evening, he paid over the
$40 TO Long John, the plaintiff not being by,
and, then plaintiff and Long John left the sa-
loon together.
If you believe the defendants evidence, then
I say 10 you, that the defendant was justfabe
in paying over TO Long John at least the $50
deposited by him, Long John and in respect
to the $50 deposited by the hand of Jones,
the defendant was ustfable in paying that
over TO Long John, provided Jones and Long
John were acting in concert, depositing the
money on sham bets, with the understanding
that the defendant was Immediately TO return
the money to one or the other Of them. If
Jones by his acts, words or conduct justified
the defendant in believing that such concert
and understanding existed between him and
Long John, the defendant might legally pay
over the money to either confederate, and the
| plaintiff should not recover in this action.
| PERsoNAL.-We were favored with