Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1893-04-21
Court OfADDeaiS.

opinion was rendered in the case of
George L. Lescallett against the Com
monwealth, the decision of the lower
court being reversed. Judge Lewis de-
livered the opinion, Judges Hinton and
Fauntleroy dissenting. 1t will be re.
membered that Mr.. Lescallett conduct
ed the place known as Lees, in Rich
mond, and under the NIushbach anti
gambling law he was arrested for
Keeping a gaming house. At the June
term of the Hastings Court last year
the case was tried and the verdict was
that the defendant was to pay fine OF
5000 and be confined in Jail for thirty
days. An appeal was taken to the Su-
preme Court. The first section of the
act makes it unlawful for any person or
person to make, write or sell books,
pools or mutuals on the result OF any
trotting race or running race of horses.
The opinion says "A bet is wager
between two or more persons. 1t IN
wolves concurrence of wills; that is,
there must be an offer to bet on one
side and accepted on the other. When
the offer is accepted, and not before,
the betting becomes complete. A bet,
like an ordinary contract, may be made
by telegraph, and when an offer to bet
is accepted by telegraph the acceptance,
as in the case of n contract, takes effect
when the message of acceptance is
delivered to the telegraph company for
transmission and not when it is receiy-
ed by the other party If, therefore,
an offer to bet is telegraphed by a per-
son in Richmond to another in New
York an the latter accepts by telegraph
the betting is done not in Richmond,
but New York, because the offer being
accepted there takes effect there"
The effect Of this decision will be that
the case will 90 back to the Hastings
Court, and in accordance with the deci-
sion of the higher tribunal, the charge
against Lescallett will be dismissed.
The case is of great interest in every
part of the State, as it makes the Mush-
zach law failure so far as it contem-
plated breaking up the turf exchanges
throughout Virginia.
In the case OF Gardner and others
against Stratton's administrator the de-
cision of the Circuit Court of Nelson
county was reversed, Judge Richardson
rendering the opinion. The case in
wolves the construction Of the will OF
the late S. X. Nelson, of Albemarle
county, who died in 1868. BY the
terms of the will an estate in Nelson
county, consisting of lands, &C., was
devised and decreed for the benefit OF
his daughter and her children, the
children being minors. 1t also provid-
ed against the property being taken for
debts of his son-in-law. After the
death of the daughter of the testator
two Of the children mentioned in the
will died under age The judgment
was obtained by the creditors Of John
+. Gardner, the testator's son-in-law,
and this suit was brought TO subject to
the debt of Gardner q moiety of the
estate claimed to have been taken by
said Gardner by Inheritance from the
deceased's infant children.
The court held that the property was
not liable to John F. Gardeners debt !;
that the question of his interest in said
property had been settled in a former
suit, and that the matter was res judi
cata that there was no fraud in the
conveyance by John f. Gardner to his
two surviving children, but that the
same was made upon full and sufficient
consideration, even had there been any
interest belonging to him in said estate
at the time of such conveyance.
Other decisions were rendered as fol-
lows:
Graybill against Brugh. From the
Circuit Court of Botetourt county. Re-
versed, Judge Fauntleroy delivering
the opinion.
Manchester Paper Mills Manufactur
ing Company against Heth, trustee.
From Hastings Court of Manchester.
Dismissed for want Of jurisdiction.
Judge Richardson delivering opinion.
Norris against Woods. From the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield county.
Reversed, Judge Hinton delivering the
opinion, Judge Lacy dissenting.
Dew against Baldwin & Brown. From
the Circuit Court Of the city of Rich
mond. Reversed, Judge Fauntleroy
delivering the opinion.
Kern, Barr & Co. against Wyatt.
From the Circuit Court of Frederick
county. Affirmed, Judge Richardson
delivering opinion.
Savers against Sayers. Writ of error
and supersedeas allowed to a judgment
of the Circuit Court Of Wythe county,
rendered at the March term, 1893.
State Bank of Virginia against Blan-
chard. Argued and continued.