The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1885-01-24
sutt ON an ELECTION Bet.

In October last James E. Smith, of this
city, and Philip H. Babylon, of Uniontown,
made bet on the Presidential election.
The terms were-if Blaine be elected Mr..
Smith was to pay for $35 suit of clothes for
Mr.. Babylon; if Cleveland be elected, Mr..
Babylon was to pay for a S35 suit of clothes
for Mr.. Smith. Mr.. Smith, claiming to have
won the bet, brought suit before Justice 7. b.
Mikesell The case came up on Tuesday,
Col. VIM. p Maulsby and d. N. Henning
appearing for Mr.. Smith, and III. 81. Clabaugh
| for Mr. Babylon The defendant and two
material witnesses for the plaintiff were alb
sent. Counsel for plaintiff submitted to
writing what they proposed to prove by the
absent witnesses, which was admitted as true
by counsel for defendant. The case was then
proceeded with, Mr.. Smith testifying that
Mr.. Babylon had proposed the bet and that
it was made in good faith; that he proposed
to stake the money, but that Babylon refused;
that both considered the wager as having
been made, and that both of them had spoken
of it to others. The admitted evidence of the
absent witnesses corroborated the testimony
of Mr.. Smith in the main. Testifying fur
Their, Mr. Smith said he had called upon Mr..
Babylon to settle the wager, and that Babylon
refused. Upon cross examination Mr.. Smith
said that he had considerable number of bets
on the election, the money being up on all,
except for a hat. pair of shoes and the clothes
wagered with Babylon, and that he had funds
in bank to pay for these in the event of losing.
1t having been shown that the bet had been
made, the law in the case was next consid
cred. Col. Maulsby said that section IS ar
ticle of the Revised Code was the only law
he knew of on the subject, and he read it as
follows: ssNo person shall make any bet or
wager on the result of any election to take
Al IL I'D l,.a&
the law prohibited betting on elections to be
Held in this state, not in any other state, nor
in the United States He spoke at some
length on the objects of government, the
making of constitutions and laws and their
construction, and of the rights and privileges
of citizens.
Mr.. Clabaugh, for the defense, argued that
there was no consideration either good or
valuable involved in the contract, explaining
what would be ''good'' and what would be
valuable" and claimed that neither was in
volved in the transaction. He also discussed
the 85th section, referred to by counsel for
plaintiff and said that part of the presiden
tial election was an election in this state.
Mr.. Ciabaugh read sections sc and 81, and
commended that the three must be construed
together. COL Maulsby replied that section
Sc provided for the Indictment of persons
making wagers on elections in this state, and
prescribed punishment, but did not think an
Indictment would hold against persons wager
ing on the result in another state. The S7th
section provided only for the forfeiture of
money staked.
The defense, however, rested their case on
the ground of no legal consideration IN the
contract, and public policy. The justice non
pressed the case.
The plaintiff will bring suit in the Circuit
Court, after Congress shall have declared the
result of the presidential election.