The record-union., 1891-02-25
IT WoULlu'g GO.
Judge Cravens Surprises the City and
County Pros, acutors.
He Declines to Dismiss a Case on Their
Advice-Tucker's :" Hokey-
Pokey', Gar he.

SSNeIi Weeks ago are DocOl lung 1ntefeSl-
ing.
AS has already been published, Judge
Van Fleet declined to pronou nee sentence
upon Tucker last week, beG ause he had
been informed that money which had
been found upon fuckers person had
been returned to him at the pc ice station,
and the court desired to 10 ctlk into the
matter.
tucker was before the in age again
yesterday, but as the District Attorney
stated that two more men, nam, ID George
Blanchard and John Brown, ad been
arrested as fuckers accompii YES, and
Tucker might be needed as u witness,
sentence was again postponed.
Chief of Police Drew was them placed
on the witness stand, and questia ned re-
gardlng the return Of the money 70
Tucker at the police station. 1iaa court
stated that 1nasmuch as The money iDund
upon Tucker belonged to Moore, the
robbed man. Tucker had no right &c it.
Chlei Drew stated that at the Ii, ne OF
1ucker,s arrest he was searched s { the
station house, and there was found su.oon
him s99 %. AS his bail was fixed al, 500,
4 friend added five cents to this sum alld
it was put up as bail The next an or
the day thereafter, fuckers
BAIL WAS INCREASED
To $1,000, which was given, and Turke +
demanded his Sl0G, claiming il wss hi
own private money. The Chief sait1 In 9
at 1irSt refused TO give it up, but he corr
suited with the City Attorney, who said
that as the bail had been given the Deposit
could not be held.
The court stated that while the monev
should not have been given to Tucker, he
was satisfied that the Chief was not to-
blame.
The Judge then shifted off on q new
| tack, so to speak, and called Moore to the
witness stand. He asked Moore if it
were true that, since the trial had COM
menced, his money had been returned to
him.
Moore seemed little confused, and fl
nally explained that he had,received $50,
part" or, rather, Blanchard's division of
the spoils. He would not say. however,
that he had agreed, by this arrangement,
not to prosecute Blanchard.
Judge Van Fleet intimated that he
would look further into the case, and then
dropped the matter.
fuckers PALS.
Blanchard and Brown, who are charged
with assisting Tucker in robbing Moore,
We're examined in the Police Court YES
terday afternoon and evening.
Tucker was the first witness called. He
testified that he was employed by Blanch-
ard to deal ''hokey-pokey." He then re-
peated the story given by him in the Su-
pefior Court on his own trial, declaring
that Moore had lost fairly. Tucker adj,
admitted that he "staked'' Brown. who
was one of the ''cappers'' for the game.
The game was a fair one he said, and
there was no understanding between
himself and Blanchard or Brown that
there should be any crookedness in the
play. Blanchard was not present during
| the game, and could not have known
| whether the play was fair or crooked
| G. d. Stewart, q railroad man, testified
that man named Parker had endeavored
to get Moore to leave the card-table, when
one of the 'cappers' interfered, and, talk
ing Parker out of the room, got the bar
keeper to give him s. Ito keep quiet"
Stewart testified to other similar cfrcum-
stances going to show that it was O pre-
arranged affair to rob Moore.
RILEY DENIES IT.
At the session of the Court last night
Riley, the bartender in the saloon in
which the game was conducted, and
Blanchard, one of the defendants, were
placed on the witness-stand. The former
swore that he did not give S. to anybody
for the purpose of inducing an outsider
named Parker not to interfere with the
game. Blanchard said Tucker brought
Sl30 to HIM and stated that it was the
winnings of the game. He afterward
gave S. to Brown, but he did not know
| what the latter was going to do with it.
The defense rested, and Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Buckley made the opening
statement for the prosecution. He was
brief in his remarks, and after a short re-
view of the testimony he said he did not
| believe it warranted the committal of
Blanchard, but certainly showed that
Brown was guilty as an accessory.
City Attorney Hart agreed with Attor-
ney Buckley that the evidence was not
sufficient to convince jury that he was
| guilty. He believed Browns case, how
ever, ought to go to the Superior Court.
Frank Estabrook, attorney for the de-
| PENDANTS, said he did not believe that any,
thing he might say would change the
mind of the court and sat down.
Judge Cravens then proceeded to give
his decision, and surprised the attorneys
| by holding both defendants to answer.
He said in substance:
1T seems very clear, from all the testi-
mony introduced and the circumstances
connected with the case, that there was
conducted at this saloon game (which
some people, whose moral sense seems to
| be so obtuse as to incapacitate them from
deciding what is right from what is
wrong) called "hokey pokey." 1t is
A RoBBING GAME,
And was not intended for any other pur-
pose than to rob. 1t is not gambling
game, for when gambling is con-
! Quoted squarely the man who bets
has some chance to win. In
this game, however, no such opportunity
| is offered. 1t is operated for the purpose
of Fleeing people, and the testimony
| shows that this particular game was sup
piled with all the paraphernalia to rob,
such as "cappers," 'steerers" and
boosters" When citizen, seeing that
! Moore was being swindled, attempted to
| interfere and stop the game, his silence
was purchased for s.. Moore was in
| duced to play by 'steerer," who found
him near the Western Hotel. When he
sat down to the table, everyone except
| ing himself was a ''capper," and only
aiding the dealer in winning Moore's
money. There was testimony to the
| effect that Blanchard and Tucker held a
conversation together, which was a cir
cumstance against the defendant
| Blanchard. He denies having
| held this conversation, but it
only at best makes conflict of testi-
mony, and such as should go before a
jury. l don't think any committing
magistrate would discharge one defend
ant and not the other in this case, for ii a
conspiracy is proven to have been en-
tered into, and these two men are in
yolved, one is as guilty as the other. 1t
| is so clear to me that this game was
| openly conducted for robbing purposes,
that would think was derelict in my
| duty as Judge of this court if I did not