National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-03-04
THE LITTLE JOKER,
Thrce-card Mon,c-Its nistory In This
District

ThrGe-fnrd MOntc-hta htatOry IN Thtn
District
To the Editor Of THE REPunLIcANi
We see II noticed In one Of the city papers that
the judges Of the Supreme Court ofthe District of
Columbia lave requested Colonel Corkhil to pre-
pare bill TO reach the three.card monte cases, to
be submitted 10 Congress. As the law In reference
TO this peculiar mode of stealing now stands, MS
well ascertaincd and settled by the later rulings Of
the District Court, there seems TO MS to DO no ne
oessty for this And as Congress is just now over
crowded with District business and moves slowly,
ifnot reluctantly itmigt be better TO let tho matter
stand where II ls. A brief judicial history Of this
onensc aud the rulings of our courts may be not
out Of place.
UP TO THE SUMNER OF 1880
the three-card monte swindlers had good time
OF II, and generally went scot free. IN that year
one Club Jackson was tried ~ tho Police Court
on presentment for larceny, the case involving
tho usual facts Of this game, and showing clearly
!he guilt Of the party The defense was pressed
amount to larceny. Judge Charles 5. Bundy was
then presiding in the Police Court In the absence
Of Judge Shell, and upon deliberate and careful
examination Of the law Judge Bundy decided
that the facts made case of larceny, and the
prisoner was convicted. This decision Of Judge
was appealed TO the Circuit Criminal Court OF the
District, aud upon argument there the prisoner
was acquitted. a day or two after this decision IN
the Criminal Court aud the discharge Of Jackson.
the following article appeared in THE NATIONAL
REPUBLICAN, In September, 1880;
la,ryer icho thinks ihce Is ldto TO punish The
suipiicrs.
The recent ruling of the Criminal Court Diminishing
n oflurCouy brought against man named jack
son, who II was clearly shown lad swindled his vic
game, hns since then been freely commenced upon by
the Lawyers many of whom take exceptions to INC
Court that there was no law to meet the case. The
KNOWN isyyeT. In nv opinIon, ms me law now
stands, the defendant jackson was clearly guilty of
aud as reported IN THn NATIONAL RrrupLfcAX,
and base this opinion upon the following case with
S @ lex y ROBSON Gr oms Of hP
pursieded the prosecutor by preconcerted plan TO
S Bet ana ne siaEcho Hdici' eraT%ard dpSS We
had won the wager, handed the money over to him.
money was taken there was plan Tint i should be
kept under the false color OF winning the bet aud the
larceny, and tho prisoner was convicted Trek vs..
Robson, H. and T., i3l This covers Jackson's case
facts. Nov as this swindic Is an everyday 6ccur.
renee and as the ruling Of the criminal Sonr VIII be
like cases, there ought &C. be something done TO cor
in trial D. that court had found This man Jackson
guilty Of larceny, and as Judge Bundy was right as
such case should originate in his court he viii not
change his Tng STcnp,ng pp9n ll conference ont
we're and scrutinous revision Of the case
| THIS ARTICLE WAS THE SUBJECT
| OF considerable comment ut the time, and seems
| to have had the happy effect of settling the law
for since that time the three card monte swindle
| has been held to be larceny by one court, no man
| since that time having been acquitted when in-
dictcd for the oiIcnse of larceny under the facts
disclosing the three-card monte swin1le. With
out referring to other very clear cases. besides the
| one noticed in THE REPUBLICAN in the article
above printed, the recent of United States VS..
Rodgers and Hunter clearly settles the question in
principle, aud f the judges as they will be bound
to do hold 10 their decision in this case there is no
need Of any statute. The case Is fully reported in
the Washington Lar Reporter of February % 1882.
To Judge Bundy, then, the District is indebted for
the first ruling In the right direction on this very
| important question. The enlightened opinion of
Chief Justice Cartier. in the above.not case OF
| the United States vs. Rodgers aud Hunter Is
worthy of especial attention and leaves regret in
| our minds that this venerable judge does not al
| low more of his emphatic utterances to be put in
shape to be widely circulated as authority.