The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-02-09
BUNKO ONCE MORE.

DEMOCRAT to give n much fuller and more
reliable statement OF the case.
It will be remembered that the pro-
secution was at the instance Of Mr.. Louis
Ruttkay. one OF the several gentlemen
lately roped in by bunko swindlers, at
"a st. Charles street, charging johnson
with being a gambler and gambling
housekeeper.
The hearing took place last Thursday
before Recorder Evans, and upon an
affidavit the substance OF which Ia as
follows:
That on tho 18th January, 1876, at No. |
"a st. Charles street, In the city OF New
Orleans, one William johnson did keep
q banking game and banking house
and that said William johnson did aid
and assist In keeping said banking house
and ban king game, and did also engage
in gambling, where pieces Of bone or
other materials being the representa-
lives OF money by the understanding Of
the parties, were bet and hazarded, all
this in violation OF sections OIL and 913 OF
the Revised Statutes of Louisiana.
The following was substantially the
proof Of tho prosecution:
Policeman Mulahy testified L have
been on duty on st. Charles street, be-
tween Common and Gravier "a st.
Charles street Is In my beat; 1t Is q
gambling house.
Alexander Dalsheimer testified-That
no was familiar with the game called
faro bank 1t Is a gambling game, played
by cards or chips Of bone !. the keeper Of
l. ,sst f,Ax,
in the game, and he is, Of course, u gam
bier. but not necessarily the keeper OF q
gambling house.
q. w. Stahsbery testiiied-1 am re-
porter for the DEMOCRAT tho day after
defendant was arrested, he came to
me and complained of calling him In the
paper of the day before "a bunko thief"
/ told him | based that charge upon his
answer when testifying in Superintend
ent Loan trial, to tho question put to
him, whether he was tho keeper Of u
bunko shop, his answer being that, he
declined to answer the question told
him / would receive whatever statement
he might make; he then said that he
was sporting man, and the keeper OF q
| faro bank. / think mt "a st. Charles
street he also said that he sublet the
| front room at "a st. Charles street to
some fellows. whom he had elected rs
soon us he heard of their swindling ope-
rations; next day published his state
| ment in the DEMOCRAT.
w. +. Loan testified-A Am Chief OF
| Police. The defendant has settled in
! several instances alleged losses OF per-
sons by bunk0 swindlers ut 81 st.
Charles street among others with Mr..
Ruttkay and Mr.. Samuel Steadman.
The defense admitted In open court
that Samuel Steadman, who failed to
appear, although subp6naed, would
testify that he had been roped in and
swindled of three hundred dollars. at "a
st. Charles street, few days before the
18th OF January, 1876, that on complaint
at Supt. Loans office, the defendant
came forward and made an appoint
ment with him at "a st. Charles street,
where, after some talk, the defendant
handed him back his three hundred dol
lars.
The defense also admitted In open
court that the defendant was q witness
for Superintendent Loan, on said Loans
trial before the Police Board; that
he was there asked by Commission
or Lewis whether he was the keeper Of
a bi,nko shop, and that his reply was
That he declined TO answer the question.
Louis Ruttkay testitied-Am prosocu-
ting witness. Am stranger In town.
On the t3th Of January last / was lured
into No. 81 st. Charles street, where
was feeced of 5000. On making com
plant TO w. T. Loan, the defendant was
sent for. He came. He asked II / was
the party who claimed to have been
| = Il 4 ~, ~ 80
answered, Eyes" He said. you went
to gambling house, ganbled and lost
your money that Is oil there is OF 1t. y
| said mo" and gave him an outline OF
the facts. He then told me to meet him
that day at y. IN. ut No. ID st. Charles
street, it being then between IL n. IN.
and IL m. / met him there. | went up
to the room where | had been swindled,
and found the man there who took my
money. | got into conversation with
him. when voice called, Come this
way" / then went into a large back
room, adjoining the front room. 1t was
fitted up us u gambling room. There
were different implements of gambling
there. Defendant was there. seated by
u table, and he asked both me and the
man who had taken my money to take
seats around the table. He then turned
to me and said. Nov, how was this?" /
detHlled the circumstances u my loss.
The fellow protested that had lost my
money fairly i'm gambling. Defendant
then said, ut makes no difference. /
tell you what will do. This is my place.
am the proprietor here. don't want
such reports to get outside. for they hurt
the reputation OF my place. They keep
away my customers. You will get back
n portion of your money II you take it
on my conditions. And / want you to
understand that but for me you would
never see cent of it.
He then pointed his finger to tho fol-
low. and told him commandingly: you
give this man $3.50" The fellow remon.
strated mildly, stating that 1 had fairly
lost it at gambling. johnson said
"You hand him over the $3.50, and get
another place."
/ said that $50 is only half my loss,
and that il am entitled to that / am
entitled to the whole. That the way the
money was got from me. was no better
than IL / had been robbed, or 1t had been
picked out Of my pocket.
Defendant, Johnson, said: Never
mind that now. you will either get back
the $50, on condition that you will say
nothing more about the matter, or you
will get nothing"
] said ii this Is the alternative, I will
take the $3.50, which he then gave me,