Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-09-14
PEACE RESTORED.
POOL SELLING CoUNTEEAKCED, BUT
NOTHING ELSE.
Judge Buckley Changes His Mind-KiI-
lip and Whitehead Leave the
Government Lot.
The battle is over.


Sacramento and everything Sacramentar
roundly. The home talent take consid
cradle comfort from the fact that nothing
goes now on the Government lot. They
were very indignant when the announce
ment was first made that there would b.
no interference with the men on the Gov
eminent reserve while they-the "homt
talent were forced to shut up theil
games by the police. If one goes they al
ought TO go, very properly thought the Sac
ramento gamblers. But now that NOTHING
goes they feel easier-it was case Of
misery loves company " once more.
United States Marshal Franks formally
notified the pool sellers aid other souatters
on The postot1ice size 10 vacate Yesterday
forenoon and they FASTENED TO obey,
hillIp u Co. set force of men 10 work
tearing down their tent and another force
OF laborers started in TO fit up tie vacant
lot on Seventh street, just below K, for The
reception of the tent. Poe. selling will
continue at this latter place unmolested
until the end o. the fair, but no other
games, such as chuck. q. luck, wheel of-Ior.
tune L-e2-and-sheli etc, viii be permitted,
Chief Lee beng determined TO carry out
lis previously duIOlLG%A tA&IENl ~ sup
everything prohibitei by law
PooL-sELLNG LAWFUL.
The pool sellers continue operations by
virtue Of the decision Of Police Judge
Buckley Yesterday in Gischarging White
head and Killip
For many day the old Police Court hes
not had the honor of holding such a num-
Der of prominent people as UcGuried seats
or stood up within its walls as OF yesterday
morning. A number of the members of
the State Agricultural Society we're present.
including II. NJ. II Rue, i. U. Shiupee
Johp Boggs, Chris. Green ana Fred Cox
BESIDES many other prominent citizens
who took lively interest in the case.
The defendants, killip aud Whitehead,
were represented by Grove L Johnson.
When Judge Buckley called the two
cases, Mr. johnson arose and, addressing
the Court, SAID:
II your Honor please, l appear for the defend
ants. and have filed a demurrer which think
VIII bring this matter up, and it can pro, ably
be disposed of ON clearly legal proposition viz:
Intt Ihe facts SCI iorth IN the complaint do not
constitute pubic onenSe, By agreement be-
tween the City Attorney and myself will state
what the facts are so that there win be DO dis
pute in the argument The facts as we under
stand them, are: That the Agricultural Soci-
ETY. is state institution; that II offers premi-
ums for exhibitions of speed at its fairs in this
CITY that IL adVeTtls d for and let the privi-
lege OF Sci ing pools on Its OWE grounds in this
city, aud the privilege was let to these defend
anus VINO were 10 pay 70 per cent of the amount
received by them 10 the Society and 10 pay the
expenses themselves out OF the remaining S.
per cent; that in pursuance OF the privilege
and license and lease awarded them by the
state Agricultural Society these gentlemen
went upon the grounds owned by the So
ciety and engaged in The business of Sc /
ing pools upon the races that in that bust
ness they do not have one single dollar of
their own money at stake they do not have
any Dank they 90 not put up one dollar: they
are not interested TO the amount of one dollar
IN the race; they do net bet upon the
race they have nothing to do with the
race, or with its decision. with the appointrrenf
OF the Ju1zes, or the oifering of the premiums
or the payment OF the purses or the payment of
the premium. They do not bet themselves +;
none OF the money that is left in their hands
belongs TO them they simply act as agents or
Stockholders Tor persons who desire to bet uppn
horse race and TO put the money in their
hands, ana then they charge the men three per
cent, Tor the services n preparing the tickets
IN caring for the money and in handing the
money over TO the man who has placed mis-
money upon the horse that has been successful.
The method OF doing business is for one person
Aennected with these defendants 10 announce
the names of the horses that have been entered
and that will compete for the purse offered bv
the society. Then he asks how much is offered
Tor irst choice. some person SAYS he is willing
70 give so much Tor first choice and takes it (;
Jhen now mucn Tor second choice and il is
taken; then for third choice and sometimes
other horses are put in what is known as the
Held, AID that is called the last choice. The
money Is put in their hands simply to hold
and they 90 not contr butte, as ! said before one
cent to the matter. And the Agricultural Soci-
ETY. by its rules and REGULATIONS and by its agree
ment win THESE booksellers absolutely prohib-
Its them from owning or being interested in any
horse competing upon the track or in any of the
purses offered. And they
ARE NOT INTERESTED N ANY BETTING
And are precluded from that Now
tNt lot G1.aA 10
aud ask your Honor to dismiss this proceeding
This action IS brought under Section $50 of the
Penal Code, which reads as follows Every
person who deals, plays or carries on, opens or
causes to be opened, OF who conducts either as
owner or empoye, whether for hire or not any
game OF faro monte roulette, lanSquenet rouge
et nolre, rondo, or any banking or percentage
game played with car S, dice or any device for
money, checks, credit or any other repl eseuta-
tive of value, is punishable by fine of not less
Than two hundred nor more than one thousand
dollars, and shall be imprisoned in the County
Jail until such fue and costs of prosecution are
paid such imprisonment no. to exceed one
year II VIII undoubtedly be conceded by the
City Attorney ina. if this charge is to be main
tanned at all It viii come under the provision
that this Is either banking or percentage
game. Am not cOrreCt2
Mr. ChurCh-Cert4inly
hr. Johnson-It is not a crime al common law.
II crime 1t Is made so by this statute hence
the language OF the statute should be carefully
examined. 50 far as its being a banking game
Is concerned, we cite your Honor TO the opinion
OF the Supreme Court OF California, delivered in
the case o! me People VS. Carroll, filed by the
supreme Court ON the ID day Of August in
which banking game is thus defined: "A
DehNhlg game Is a game conducted by one or
more persons where there is a fund against
which everybody has q right to bet the bank
being responsible for the payment of ali the
Iuhqs taking in al that is wen and paying out
all that Is lost The fund which is provided for
that purpose is generally called the bank, and
the person who conduc Is the banker" That
oenhihoh excludes entirely and absolutely
any possibility OF the guilt of these
defendants, so far as a banking game IS con-
ceTncd. There is no fund; they have no fund
1hey are not responsible for anything. They
pay out nothing, they take in nothing. They do
nothlng except simply 10 act SIS stake holders as
banGers for these people. And l apprehend
tha. the CITY Attorney win not contend that it
is banking game. Now, as 10 its being per
csntasS game: II cannot be called percentage
game, because 1t is not a game; TOR the defend
ants IN ms case are not connected With the
game, mat is. with the races. They do nothing
They do not bet upon t. They do not act i'm Il
either as principal or an agent They have
nothing whatsoever 20 do with The game They
ftAhG no part m any proceeding, they simply
hsSP tu5 money. mere Is no game. In the
language Of the Supreme Court of Michigan.
the persons racing the horses are strangers to
the pnol'sclling, and do not race with q view to
the bets solely, or at all and Therefore il is not
game. In this STATE it has been decided that
~ common law waEers were recoverable, and
upon that there viii be no question betweca US
nave the authorities here and cite them:
Johnson vs. Fall, Cal; Johnston vs.. Russell
% Cal GFidiey vs. Dorm, 81 Cal: Cor6in VS. Wach-
h9rst, - Cal. The last is the late 81 case and
one that your Honor may remern ber-s game Of
shaklng dice for money. The Supreme Court
saopt.d Judge MeFarland's decision and de-
CluSu tnAt tLtatWa not game prohibited by law
and. therefore, the money which had been
Now
HOUSEKEEPING Is not PROHIBITED
By law In California, nor is 1t illegal NJ common
law. Upon that cite your Honor 10 the eases
already mentioned. and to the further cases Of
Porter vs. Day, 81 \. w. Rep; Harris vs. White
81 n. Y; Miner vs. Plat Pac. Rep.. Keller
VS. Plymouth Agricultural Society, 10 n w
Rep And will briefly call attention 10 these
cases NJ the present time for this reason, viz In
one case cited in the y. ". Rep from the Ststf
of Wisconsin in another and from the state d
Iowa, by law horse racing was Illegal. BY the
statutes OF these States IL was illegal to have
horse races or 70 bet at them: but they permit
led the AgricuItnral SncietY of those 'Sfates n