Morning journal and courier., 1893-05-18
Thursday, May iS. 1893.
on the books which would prevent pool

upon the books which would prevent pool
 sellingf
 Finally Judge Blydenburgh urged ths,
 betting on horse racing was not gaming. The races were trials of strength, hkill and endurance, and not questions of chance, as poker, dice or faro.
 Assistant City Attorney MAtthewman, in e very able argument, said: "Pool selling is comparatively e new term, the dehni- ton of which Is somewhat limited. It is said: This modern pool differs from that of Siloam in two particulars-it Is always disturbed, and nobody who descsnds Into 1t ever comes out cured. '-' Fool selling is gambling, and is an agreement between two or more persons to risk their money or property in 6 contract or chance where one may be gainer and the other loser" |" At this point in his argument many su- thorities were cited to show that this was an indictable oFenee at common law; that betting and wagering wac gaming, and the betting was complete when the offer to bet is complete, although the game be never finished and the stake neither lost or won.
 Continuing MT. Mstthewman said: "The position taken by the attorney for the &C., cused, that because an evil had existed for period of months or years, without in- reference from the authorities, therefore the statute had become obsolete and void, is nonsense. Why pool selling had been allowed at Hamilton park or Charter Oak park and other places was not for the attorney for the state to answer at this time, and was no excuse for permitting the evils daily attendant upon the pool room depravity of Center street.
 "Horse racing is a game, and betting on horse racing Is gaming. Ever since the statute of King Charles II was enacted, horse racing has been considered as a game, and any person betting on a game Is guilty of gaming.
 ''Not only has this been the universal law in England for the last 200 years, but also in this country In nearly every state in the union betting on horse racing has been held to be gaming"
 Many cases were then cited from Indi. ana, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan, Tennessee, Missouri and other ststes hold ing that a horse race is & game. The lead ing case cited by the attorney for the state was that of People vs. Weithof, 5l Mich, POS. The opinion was written by one of the sblest jurists in the country-Chief Justice Cooley. This was case identical with that at issue. "The statute of Mich igsn relating to gaming" he said, sIs near. ly the same as the statute of this state sec. 2559 de gaming. The defendants in the case cited contended that upon the facts set up and admitted, and that If pools were sold and bets made upon certain horse races in other states that the same did not constitute gaming ss charged. The sole question was whether upon the facts the use of the room for the purpose made 1t 6 gaming room. The court in an ex hsustive opinion ruled that it did, and that the selling of pools in the manner stated was gaming.
 Iu Edwards V. state s 'Lea" Tennessee report, the court said that while the statute legalize horse racing on regular track in the state, the sale of pools on horse races to run upon 8 track outside of the state was gaming. Also a strong case and analogous and identical with at issue was that of Ransom state, 9l Tennessee, page TIT.
 Attorney Mstthewmsn stated that the only case presented by the defendants WAS that of James vs Gamble in the o3 Maryland where it was stated that the selling of pools upon horse races did not constitute an offence within the meaning of the statute 1t will be noticed, he said, that the statutes of Maryland do not pro hibit gaming. All 1t rays on the sub ject is that "sny one keeping a gaming table," etc. The court was divided in its opinion, the majority Cfour) claiming thst If horse raising was gaming, then & horse race must be gaming table. The chief justice and another judge disssnted from the opinion and most emphsiioslly ststed that horss racing was gaming.
 Attorney Ast.hewmsn cited many su- thorities to substantiste his petition, and claimed that not only are the proprietors of the Center street pool room guilty of gaming and keeping a gaming room under our statutes, but also under the common asae,, ,E which is fine of $500 and six months imprisonment.
 Judge Cable reserved declsion on the demurrer until this morning.