St. Paul daily globe., 1888-08-29
POOL ROOMS MAY RUN.
Justice Vanderburgh's Opinion on This
Subject.
BUYING TICKETS A CRIME,
Decisions. in Various Cases Prepared
and Promulgated During the :
Dog Days. !.

OUy Od3Ss =
u
Messrs. Shaw and Bannigan, who consl
duet the fremont Exchange on Robert,
street, will continue to do business att
the old stand as far as courts of law are
concerned. The supreme court has
ruled in their favor, which will be well
come news, not only to the proprietors.
but to an army of sports who love to;
'provOke the leopard" Last spring
an effort was made to close this
establishment up because of it's demOral-.
1zing tendencies, and on the ground that
the business conducted was spe--
cies of gambling. An Indictment was
found against the proprietorS in the
district court, but an appeal was taken
to the supreme court, with the result as
already stated. The court rules that.
according to the statutes, the descrip-
tive lists, statements or announcements
OF the particulars of horse race, from
which those desiring to bet on the races
may more conveniently obtain infOrma-
bling devices. Continuing, Judge Van
derburgh says: 1--WE are unable to say
that boards, lists OR records of pools are
anything more. There is no element of
chance in their use, which we consider
the test. Under the statutes the indict-
ment should be quashed and the de-
PENDANTS discharged" The syllabus in
this case reads as follows:
| The State of Minnesota VS.. Frank Shaw
| and Harry Bannigan
| A violation of section 294, Penal Code,
| Which prohibits gambling with cards, is
a misdemeanor, and is punishable under
| section 13.
The risking of money between two or
| more persons on contest of chance of
| any kind, where one must be the loser
and the other the gamer, is gambling.
For such purposes horse race is
| game, and betting thereon is punishable
''listS" described in the Indictment and
alleged to be kept and used by defend
| ants, and descriptive of horse races and
the times and places of such races, are
| not ''gambling deviceS'' within the in
tent and meaning of the statute. No
| additional element of chance is intro
duced thereby. and the determination
OF the alleged games is not affected by
their use. VANDERBURGH,J j.
| OTHER DECISIONS.
The following additional decisions
were filed at the Office of the clerk of
| the supreme court Yesterday:
William r. Marshall, appellant, VS..
Horace E. Thompson ct al, respond
ents.
Syliabus-Where the relation of mort
gagor and mortgage is once established
| any transfer or arrangement for the
acquisition of the equity of redemption
| by the mortgagee without foreclosure
is regarded with jealousy and carefully
scrutiniZed by the courts. Any addi-
| tiOnal cOnveyanceS eXacted or secured
| by the mortgage for his benefit will
ordinarily be regarded as further secur-
| ity, or new form of security for the
! same mortgage debt, and will not ex-
tinguish the equity of redemption. The
| court will look through the form into
the real character of the transaction.
| Whenever property is transferred, no
matter in what form, if in reality as Sc
| curity for the mortgage debt, the trans
| fer will be treated as in effect mort
| gage, and the relation of mOrtgagOr and
| mOr.gagee be held to continue; and it
| is not material that a third person be
| made trustee of the legal title as be-
| tween the parties, and that new Secur-
| tiles be substituted for the old, nor that
| any personal obligation of the debtor be
| preserved; the equity of the mortgagor
will be recognized and protected.
VANDERBURGH, j.
D. G. Russell ct al, appellants, VS.. The
Wisconsin, Minnesota q Pacific Rail-
way Company, respondents.
Syllabus hen the defendant agreed
generally by parOl to take railroad ties
of the plaintiff, but no definite amount
or number were specified, the accept
| ance OF certain number actually deliv-
| cred by the plaintiff cannot be held to
| obligate the defendant to receive any
| more. A parOl contract to furnish ties
| to the amount of $50 Or more in value is
not contract for work and labor, but
| for the sale OF goods and chatteiS, and
within the statute of frauds.
| Under a general denial of the allega-
| tiOnS i'll the complaint, which set forth a
parol agreement and part acceptance
| hereunder, the plaintiff is obliged to
| prove both contract and acceptance in
order to make out case.
VANDERBURGH, J.
Hanover Fire Insurance Company and
Citizens Fire Insurance Company, re-
SpondentS, VS.. E. b. AmeS, appellant
| SyllabuS-The plaintiffs S general agent
| notified subordinate clerk in the Office
| of the defendant, who was local inSur-
ance agent for the plaintiff in Minneap-
| oils, not to take any risk for the plaint-
| ifs in or upon certain business block
located in block 62, Minneapolis. The
clerk did not notify defendant person.
ally, but in the usual course of business
| entered the direction in the "block
book " of the defendant, which con-
| tanned a record of the lots and blocks
of the city and the buildings located
thereon, and upon which entries and
| memoranda affecting insurance risks
and renewals were made; but i'll making
such entry he emitted reference to the
building, and made the entry generally
notifying the defendant to take no new
| risks in block 62.
Upon an application for insurance
upon the buildings in question, the man
aging agent of the defendant examined
the "block book and noticed the
entry as actually made, but. owing to
its general nature, diSregarded it and
took risk for plaintiff therein. Held
that this notice as actually entered was
sufficient to put him upon inquiry and
bound the defendant.
John Bisbee ct al, appellants, VS.. Mary
McAllen. respondent.
SyllabuS-The provision for penalty
in section II, chapter 81. General Stat
utes Of 1878, for selling or disposing of
| goods, wares or merchandise, by un-
sealed and improved scales or measures,
as required by that chapter, implies a
| prohibition. Such sales being in viola
ton of law, as recovery can be had for