The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1885-02-14
SUIT ON AN ELECTION BET.
Kesfminster Advocate.

Westminster Advocate.
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 a
S35 suit of clothes for Mr.. Babylon; if Cleveland
be elected, Mr. Babylon was to pay for sS5 suit
of clothes for Mr.. Smith. Mr.. Smith, claiming
to have won the bet, brought suit before Justice
P. B. Mikesell. The case came up on Tuesday,
Col. VIM. P. Maulsby and D. N. Henning APP
pearing for Mr.. Smith, and II. NJ. Clabaugh for
Mr.. Babylon. The defendant and two material
witnesses for the plaintiff were absent. Counsel
for plaintiff submitted to writing what they pro-
posed to prove by the absent witnesses, which was
admitted as true by counsel for defendant. The
case was then proceeded with, Mr.. Smith testify
ing 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 further, 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 a con-
siderable number OF bets 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
considered. Col. Maulsby said that section IS
article of the Revised Code was the only law be
knew of the subject, and he read it as follows:
"No person shall make any bet or wager on the
result of any election to take place in this state"
He then commended that the law prohibited bet
ting 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 govern
ment, 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 valu-
able involved in the contract, explaining what
would be "good" and what would be valuable"
and claimed that neither was involved in the
transaction. He also discussed the S5th section,
referred to by counsel for plaintiff, and said that
part of the presidential election was an election
in this state. Mr.. Clabaugh read sections Sc and
81, and contended that the three must be con-
strued 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 wagering on the re-
suit 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 re-
suit of the presidential election.