Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-01-03
A PEGILIAk sue.
Decision In the Case Of Dave versus
the Psst.snteliigearer.

Decision In the Case Of Dave versus
the Psst.snteliigearer.
A decision in the case of Philip Dave
vs. the PosT-IsTELLIoIScER Publishing
Company Was rendered by Justice Lyon
Yesterday morning. This case, which
grew out OF the glove contest between
LYNN and Dave a. Black Diamond some
weeks ago, was rather peculiar IN its ma
tnse. While it vss not really matter of
great public interest, II aas been com
aented upon to suttolsnt extent to
make necessary a PLAIN statement OF
thu facts.
la arranging FOR tbs glove contest
between LINN and Dave, 1t Was agreed
by the parties interested that the stakes
sAould be lefi at the office OF the Posi-
IsTELIIaEsoKR until the contest should
take place aud decision by the referee
be rendered. This arrangement WAS
objected to by the PosT-lsTELLIGES
CrE 90 the ground that everyone con
neo,ed with that paper vas totally uu
| familiar With the rules governing the
| contest, and that no one lnuec ell with
| 10 either took any interest IN tue affair
4 HI ult~ttbD bt tApJNtti W SltuFHs tut
| contest. 70 this objection 1t was
answered that the money put OPP by the
contestants would be left 10 the office
| of the Posi- lSTELLIGENCEg, subject
| only T. the order IF the referee, precise
| ~ AZ II it were left IN a bank subject to
| ms check. The stakeholder was to do
nothing bus hand cut the money when
| he decis On was presented, without re
1 alec Raara
sentatives of both parties agreed t. this,
and with this understsr ding ths money
was accepted by the stakeholder.
The contest took place according to
agreement aud vss awarded to LYNN
on a foul With this deoi 4ien the Dave
party was dissatisfied, and Vhsn on the
following evening Lynu's representa-
tives appeared at the o flee of the Posr.
lSTKLLIssScER aud demanded ths
stakes. attorneys representing the Dave
party also appeared protesting against
then payment. Ills protest. however,
WAS not based upon the ground that the
bet Was an i'll ga I'D IL and thAt each
Of the parties IL It had consequently a
right to demand = return OF the money
dep sited, hut rather on the ground that
the fight had not been fairly Won by
Lynn and that Dawe was entitled to the
stakes. In answer to this, the Lynn
claimants presented the written decision
of the referee, which according to the
agreement. was to be the onl, thing re-
Rarded by the stakeholder. The money
was accordingly paid over to the Lynn
party, ample assurance having been first
given that II suit was brought by Dave
for its recovery. no loss would fall upon
the stakeholder.
For several days after this the IN after
Was allowed to rest. Dave then CON
menoed suit before Justice Hill. TIE
claim was new based upon the ground
that betting was illegal and that party
20 bet could recover from a stake
holder the money deposited with him
at any time before the event which was
to decide the bet had taken place, or
even after the event bad taken place.
provided the stakeholder had been duly
notified not to pay the money to the
winning party. Although the Posr In
rETLIas.,cER figured a. defendant in
this suit, it should be understood that
IL was not in the least interested in IL in
a pecuuiary sense. The Lynn party,
who were for the most part residents Of
Black Diamond, contested the claim Of
Dave aud employed the legal firm Of
Rasis 4 Gilman 20 defend the suit.
II vas admitted by both sides that il
i .he stake holder had been legally mott
hed not to pay ever the stakes on the
ground that plaintiff desired to with
draw from the wager. plaintiff could
recover the amount which he had put
up. Plaintiff claimed that such mott
fication had been given. Defendant de
MED this, claiming that plaintiffs pro
test against the payment had been
based upon some ifregnlarsty or nnser-
tainty In regard 60 the glove contest.
and NOS upon the illegality OF she bet.
Upon this point the oise turned. and
after bearing the evidence and duly
considering tae case, Justice Lyon. to
| whose court the csse bad bssn taken on
a change of veuue, renders q decision
10 favsr OF defendant, holding that she
notice given To the stakeholder sas not
based upon the ille9 Atty of the act. but
rather upon ths eveats Of the contest.
The money accordingly remains with
the Lyna party. he court held fur
ther that II proper notice had been
gwen the stake holder, plaintiff eoald
have recovered the smount of his stakes
This decision will doubtless have the
eject Of making letting less frequent
IN Washington Territory. or. at east,
Of making stockholders extremely eau.
tsous.