Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-09-30

4 Inc WANING OdBeS-EerccntaSc Iokcfs
| Yesterday the cases of Steve Maroney
George Rogers and Wjjam Hurst, charged
with playing and conducting the game o
percentage poker during the State Fair
were called for examination in the Police
Court. City Attorney Anderson outlined
the testimony for the prosecution and pro.
ceeded to introduce it. j. D. Kent testified
that on September 10th he, with othe,
officers, arrested the defendants at the Bank
Exchange while playing draw poker. and
| that they took out 80 cents for every . three
OF kind shown upon the table All OF
the parties were playing and conducting
the game. This was the only act of owner
ship disclosed. There was 50 50 in the
percentage drawer
W. P. Harlow said he had watched the
game at the Bank Exchange saw the de-
PENDANTS playing draw poker; saw num-
Der of drops" for "threes." Maroney
took care of the percentage, and at one
time allowed quite a number of half dol
lars to accumulate when he put them in
the drop. Understand draw poker; have
PLAYED it. This was a percentage game
that is if l understand what is a percent
age. They took out half dollar for every
threes shown.
James Riley and L. W. Farrell testified
to about the same state Of facts and that
Maroney gave them the key to the table
drawer, where 50 90 in money was found.
The prosecution then offered this 50 90
in evidence, for the purpose Of showing
the character of the game. The prosecu-
ton here rested.
The defense declined to introduce any
evidence, and the case was then submitted
Tor argument
City Attorney Anderson opened the case
for the prosecution, and claimed that the
evidence showed percentage game under
Section $50 of the Penal Code; that in the
absence of any showing on the part of the
defense there was prima facie case of
ownership, which raises legal presump-
ton of the proprietoTship resting on those
who were playing and conducting the
game.
l. S. Brown, for the defense, entered into
a long argument to show that the Legisla-
ture never intended to include any such
game as poker as percentage game that
only such games as are known 10 be per-
centage games were intended to be prohib-
tied that poker is not percentage game,
and it never was contemplated by the Leg
jsiature to include it in the prohibition
There was no evidence of either ownership
or percentage as was intended by the law
a. 2. CatHn, for the prosecution, closed
the case by an exhaustive argument upon
the character and intent of such legislation
as Section $50; that the meaning is per-
fectly plaiIi, and the section was drawn so
as to avoid all conceivable evasions
on the part of gamblers. The case
in all its features certainly dis
closes a clear percentage, thus making
it one of the interdicted games. The own
ership must be held TO be in those who
were play ng and managing the game
This part of the case was settled upon the
authority of the cases that were taken be-
fore Judge Van Fleet on habeas corpus a
few days ago. The sworn character of the
testimony upon ownership was there held
good, in tn sabsence of any other showing.
The case was then submitted. Where
upon the Judge held the defendants to an
swer to the charge, and fixed the bail at
$500 in each case.
One OF the strange features of this case,
as well as The one which was previously
examined, is that all of the parties playing
disclaimed amy ownership in themselves,
but claimed that the proprietorship was in
the house, Or other parties, yet not one Of
them madethis defense upon the examina-
ton, nor q either of them go upon the
witness-stand and make any disclaimer.
Thus they Def he cases resting upon a
legal pres unpG5E of ownership in the |
players.
The defense intend to test the intent Of
the law up on the question of " what consti- |
tutes percentage game under Section |
$50.