Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-05-17
MUST STAND TRIAL.
CHARLES PATRICK HELD TO ANSWER
FOR GAMING.
Judge Buckley Holds that the Men " he
Played Against Him are Not
AccOmplices.


Court had jurisdiction to try the case. He
rather thought it was an examination case.
Mr.. Jones, for the defense, said he did
not wish to argue that question, and would
leave it to the Court.
Judge Buckley decided that the defend
ants could only be examined by him.
Mr. Jones then moved that the defend
ants be discharged On the ground that the
Court had no jurisdiction to issue war
rant on complaints which were made on
information and belief.
Mr.. Johnson did not oppose the motion
and stated that he agreed with Mr.. Jones,
and would also ask that the complaints be
dismissed.
Judge Buckley accordingly discharged
the defendants.
Mr.. Johnson then stated that he had filed
a new complaint against Charles Patrick.
and wished warrant issued On it. This
was done, and the trial of Patrick pro-
ceeded.
Mr.. Jones asked that all the witnesses
for the prosecution be sworn. judge
Buckley administered the oath to them all
and then ordered them TO remain outside
the Courtroom until wanted.
The first witness called was Henry Alter.
He said he was 81 years of age, q carpenter
by occupation, and visited the room over
the Bank Exchange Saloon, at Second and
X streets, where game of faro was being
run. He went there on the night of Nav
14th. Charles Patrick was dealing the
game. He (Alter) bought 81 worth of
white checks, received eight Of them, and
played at the game. He won 81 at first.
anu then lost all of his checks. Mr.,
Patrick paid bets, and took in the checks
lost. The witness also stated that he was
in the same place Saturday night last. and
also on Monday On the former night
there were about seventy-five people
present, and on the latter occasion about
forty people.
Were you paid to 60 tl@re?" asked Mr.,
Jones of the witness.
An objection was made, but it was over
ruled, and the witness replied that W w.
Cone, who was working in the interests of
the Law and Order League, employed him,
giving him SIS 10 visit the game and play
at it. He played and lost two or three
dollars. The witness then went on TO ex.
plain how the game of faro was played,
after which be was excused.
Jos. Switzerland and F. w. Warner also
testified for the prosecution. They had
visited the faro bank at Second and K
Cone. the detective. He gave one of them
SIS and the other s. 80 to play at the game,
and each lost, They spent on the outside
some OF the money given them.
A recess was then taken till 100 P. NJ.
THE PROSECUTION CLOSES.
At the opening of the Court in the after.
noon Mr.. johnson announced that the
prosecution would be ready to close after
placing one more witness on the stand.
An officer had been sent for him.
Judge Buckley ordered recess for few
minutes in order to give the witness an
opportunity to arrive.
When the officer returned he said that
the witness had left the city, and there
upon Mr.. Johnson submitted his case.
Mr.. Jones then moved for the discharge
OF the defendant, on the ground that there
was not sufficient evidence TO warrant a
conviction, if held for trial. 1t would have
to be proven, in order to make out a case,
that game of faro had been dealt, and
that the person charged with the crime
was either an owner of the game or an EN-.
ploye OF the owner of the game. This had
not been done.
Counsel quoted from decision of Judge
Baldwin, rendered in 1859 in q Placer
county monte case, showing that the nature
of the game must be fully explained, which |
was not done, and the prosecution therein
failed.
The statute, ne said, must be carefully
construed, and it must be shown that the
person charged was either an owner or his
employe. II had not been shown, in this
case, that Mr.. Patrick was either an owner
or employe of the game. Further, no ex-
pert testimony had been introduced to
show that in this case the game of faro
had been dealt by Mr.. Patrick. The mere
statement of witness that he saw a game
of faro played would not be evidence.
Mr.. Jones then scored the witnesses for
the prosecution, and charged that if their
testimony was conclusive they had hired
themselves out for paltry sums to commit
a misdemeanor, for which they would be
liable to heavy fine and imprisonment.
Furthermore, the code declare that a per-
son could not be convicted of a misde-
meanor on the testimony of an accom-
plice; and if Cone and the men whom he
hired TO play faro are not accomplices he
did not know what the term meant.
Mr.. Johnson read from Supreme Court
decision in the case OF the People vs.. Car
roll, to show that witnesses NAV prove the
character of a game without being experts.
The Court was at liberty to determine the
character of games from the testimony. If
the Court should be satisfied on that point,
there was no recourse left but to hold the
defendants for trial.
He also quoted from another decision. TO
the effect that defendant, to be guilty,
need not necessarily be an owner or en-
ploye and that the witnesses who play at
game cannot be made accomplices.
Mr.. johnson then proceeded to score the
police department for condition of things
which he claimed made il necessary for
private citizens to undertake the prosecu.
ton OF persons engaged in breaking the
gaming laws. 1t came with poor grace, he
said, for any gambler, or those who defend
gambling, to attack the reputation of the
witnesses for the prosecution.
Mr.. Jones again argued the point that
none OF the witnesses had shown that a
game of faro had been played by the de-
PENDANT. Counsel repeated that the person
who plays at game of faro is an accom-
plice of the man who deals the game, I'M
der the Codes definition thereof, and held
that not witness had been on the stand
IN this case who was not an accomplice OF
Mr.. Patrick. if the latter had committed an
unlawful act.
In conclusion, Mr.. Jones said he despised
and loathed the class of creatures who
could hire themselves out for paltry sums
to try and induce others to commit mis-
deneanor. Ii this case should 90 TO a
higher Court, and the prosecution should
dare to place upon the witness stand GER
tain persons who are the prime movers in
the case-who had paid witnesses to COM
init crimes-he would lay so bare the rec
ords of some of them that they would go
forth from the Courtroom with the blush
of shame upon their calloused features.
Judge Buckley ruled adversely to the
points raised by Mr.. Jones. He thought
the evidence had shown that a prohibited
game had been played at the time and
place named in the complaint. The law
evidently did not intend that it should be
necessary 10 prove that the dealer OF a
game was either an owner or employee. To
conduct such game he held TO be suffi-
cient.
On the point as to whether or not the
witnesses who played at the game were &C.
complices, Judge Buckley said that in his