Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-04-21
CANTRANSMITM0NEY
SUPREME COURT DECIDES THE LES
kALLtT CASE FOR DEFENDANT.
9 A Bet IL a Concurrent Actien"-The
Statute Must Be Construed strictly
Other Opinions Rendered.

The Supreme Court Of Appeals on yester-
day decided the celebrated Leskallet case,
The opinion was prepared by Judge Lewis,
concurrcd IN by Judges Lacy and Richard
son. and dissented from by Judges Faunt-
leroy and Hinton.
This controversy is one which has at
tracted great deal Of attention, as its
origin was the breaking MP of what was
known rs the Turf Exchange. located at
the corner of Twelfth and Bank streets.
his city.
Tho place had as the DISPATCH readers
Will remember. been run for long time by
the AesSrs. Lee. Of Norfolk. who closed
when officially advised Of the passage by
the General Assembly Of what ~ known
ms the "Mushbach snti-gambling act.
the design OF which, rs declared IN the
title, Is to prevent and punish betting.
gambling, and the making, writing. or sell
ing OF books or pools or mutu0ls on there
suit OF anv trOttnc-racc Of horses or race
of any kind. or on any election or any con-
test OF any kind, or on any game OF base
ball.
LEsKAIITT WAS CONVICTED.
Mr. Leskalct succeeded the McsSrs. Leo
rs prOpTIotOrs Oi the Exchange and was
arrested for violating tins anti-camu!ing
law. he was tried IN the Hastings Court
IN June 1892. and convicted under the So
cOnd count of the indictment which
charged HIM with keeping a house for the
purpose OF making. writing, ana seiing
books &c. and Of otherwise CANT ung ana
permitting gambling therein ON the result
OF said race. His punishment was tNed AZ
"A fine OF $500 and thlrty-uavs impnson-
ment. The mode of operation wa To- take
bets here and telegraph them 70 the race
courses.
TUY SUPREME COURTS orTNfoN.
Tho case came 90 the Supreme court on
writ 81 error n1d. IN Juugc Lewis opinion. every
phase az 10 IL dealt with carefully ana con's'iy'
The decision recites hat 10 Is contendoi -nr-t
thai the trial court erred n oycrruing TIE de-
inurrrr % the second count 81 tne Indictment
Tho ground Of this contention "H' thai The ot-
Jet 81 the latter portion OIL Tho h,st
section aft the statute upon which mo
second count was founded in regard 10
Keeping q house for betting, or for permitting
betting theron, was not oppressed lu. ~ ger
iuauo q. tho tito oi tl" AT, hn1 therefor" III
valid under tho provision 90 tie Constitution
that 200 INV -Lal. cmuroc" moro than one Of
.ort wil-hshail Doe cnbra I'D ir its utie' Tho
court holds that this De- p mistaken Wow, ne She
49, has bat one Cruoral olicrt-fhRt Of the sup
PRECISION oi Certain kinds oi betting and gam
bling Therefore tho first socti"n makes - an
on.u.e 90 bet 900 any of tho prohibited modes,
ana the second % keep any house
FIR the purpose a. betting therein Ine
second objection ~ tho accused was tLhi
fuo verdict uf the iIu-t'nrs-Court i1iy was cnu-
trary g. Tho lav ana evidence. oni the supreme
Cour. holds shat this stand was we'll taken by
ihe irirnitni. tt' OPINION Cos vu 10 t',a t.,i,
tine Jlry found tne accused not guilty under the
first culut .ot betting. hut guilty under the
second count. which nudluc WAS clearly un-
AT ti'r.' '' ~, ,''....,..,,,,,, ~
' was ..' '''"' d." - e.,
IFo'- ihh' inc ac,i~'l u+'I we
house ga question for the purpose
D I"'tlhk 'A'i'ih nt.u9,i' W ~. ..,.h
'.u'IS '' %" s, s'. .I-,,- -. e.
ilrft Is DO .nYi '' - ,,',t,'," ~
'' '".t. I'. '' 49,. -. , a. .,.,t...,
iiti lN I'D sage .+'i N .' '''''.''. ~ % ''-.'. '
'i ON" "'i @i "ii p D.' D. % "'.'t " =" Il.
oi iA'f. P-t7o+- ~ ui,''',' '... ~ .,r,. ~
wis 3 b''' liA' uu "' ''L.-l ''.i''" -
may n' mage i> ihI'ttt fi' hHu VIC" "'t ''i"i
20 t.i D. H'."il ni 10y 'p.' l"o a .tlt.''
o. ih lAf case ul q CONTRACT t',', WI.
%" lu"s-1f" oi N'criIlh'" d H'HV'tt' I'D l'r
telegraph company Cor ;ransui--i9n. anu not
when fl' received u} TIC o-lrl l'hi'f'
am ACCUSED NOT INTERESTED
,,.,...,, iiit... ,o.i4r .flere
- rt.,''.. ti',t .t. a..'is u ,,. lntere..,i
- ..'.. .,..',.. o. fi... ....a.r Of hal come
,.,..' I'D, ....,.- tt. order q, RE tr..r. ami
.... o., t... o.. ~ 1..y,r., f.a,, .a-
'"' Pc, u.s.. ,,....s .,,.
.,...,. ,..., t.... I.ff .fl Nov Jersey
..t.,t. .f, ...,rf ,,..ir,r5ir-. i- % uet Al ono
..., ... .,,... ...,Y..Iq ifft i-'e-- CONE
..,....,-,co t...D t-e I..i.,.tur, iutanlaLut,
49,. t. co., ti.. ..'.,-,---f. sgtulv The
D. NH. r.o ...,.eat of tnr lower c5urt Is
tlrIrfo-- reversed
Counsel BOB mas c--c ere h'ssr~ h. g. NvIi-
deutprs nri ~iHi'. q. Niii.'.i iof iI' HiP''-
inu. an- The Attorney -'rh"t"l i'4 tAe O'i'il'A-
wealth.
Gardner -. NtrHtt"n' &c
Tho Court also .lar-iel yesterday "a" cneo or
Gardner ..al others against strait ms admins
-tat.-. 'l- opinion 800 Wht'n Vas rendered. 10y
.l.t., K.na,t 20. 1h,5 san involved tne cau-
...i...,..r .f fre vii. of s. t. c.-In, "a Alb
iDar.e county. VINO dIet il 1853. Hy tho terms
90 fU. ,,. a.i e-,.ts 90 Nelson county, consisting
~ lluf-. Gc.. Wa- devised aud dcc.rei 10y the
lcn.ht o. uIs Isucufc- and nor children. the
...If~eu being f.llUr-. ]. also provided AGAINST
f.a III .f,.fty i..rr fiaru inc tus I.b,a ut ms
..-.....-..e. ArtDr frr lrafn ~ tlc IguEht"r Of
.,.. ,.tor two o. in. ruili rru mentioned VA
mi. ,yiil .irf uu Ser age. Iac .uIr.ucut was op-
.af,.I tv tac creditors & john f.. Gardner, the
te-tat.r- slu-I4-.tT, AMI th:~ sIIt WIS uroIEht
o. subject o. me iout oi Grriner molciy OF tho
cst4lc claimed D., have boon taken hY saul
Gardner ty Inheritance from the diseased s. ne
Tue Co4rt nelItnattne property was not liable
"a fFHs - l a . j ID. "A