The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-21
! ESCALLETT CONQUERS.
IN, mUsHBACH ANTI-GASBIING
NV RrCEIyEs 4 BLACK EYE
49,. court Of Appeals Rcver'es the peois-
ion. Because the He''i"s Had Not lee"
.t tho Turf Exchange.

,..,oc thc opinions handed down In the
court OF appeals yesterday was
. q, the case OF George L. Lescallett !
che commonwealth. This was |
.,, from the hustings court Of the |
richmond. and the decision OF /
,,,..- court was reversed by Judge |
~. judges Faunueroy and Hinton
,....,s. and Judges Lacy and Richard
,,,..rrins in the opinion.
,..- .he Mushbach law LasceIrtt
arrested for keeping a gaming house.
,.-e io. 1892 the case was tried in
,..tIres court. and the accused was
StSn and was 10 be confined in Jail
nf.v days.
.ontcnded. first. that the trial
-. erred IN annulhng the demurrer TO
,. second count OF the indictment The
.f Il this contention is that the
t - The latter portion OF the FIRST
- ~ the statute. upon which the
count IS founded. In regard TO
....r house FOR betting. or permitting
...rr is not expressed In the title Of
t and is therefore. invalid. under
ell. provision OF the Constitution. that
.-, law shall embrace more than one
r.- which shall be expressed I'm its
r- The act has but one general object.
--f f.lt IS the suppression OF certain
kinds % betting or gambling. and ac-
..--rr'y the first section makes II an
rr.rse first. 10 bet in any OF the pro-
fa-.f modes and. second. 20 keep any
house tnr the purpose OF such betting.
te latter provision being merely one OF
tra means adopted TO accomplish the
general object expressed in the title.
The opinion says bet is wager be
tween two or more persons. Il involves
a Concurrence Of will, that is, there
--.,t DO an offer 10 bet made on one
s.la and accepted on the other Nheh 'ne
.r.- is accepted. and not before. me pet
+rr becomes complete. \ bet. ike an
binary contract. may Doe made ny 'eiV-
.-rA and when an offer % bet is ac-
r-rtal by telegraph. the acceptance as IN
a .ase Of "A contract. takes euect Wheh
tra message OF acceptance Is dehNereo
en- the telegraph company Tor UahSiilis-
SION. and not when 80 is received 10y 'le
cher party. IT, therefore an oHer 10
De is teleCraphed by person IN ms
.-- to another I'm New York. ana the
,..o- accents bv telegraph, the betting
d.. done not in Richmond. hut In New
York. because the offer being accepted
OIL ~c. takes effect there.
-ts history Of the case is substantially
.... The accused was the lessee or the
.a formerly known as the Turf
r...arca." that IN one or the rooms
- che house was a blackboard, upon
vlh we're written the names or seVeral
t-..s and their jockeys. the weights
. re-e 10 carry. sc. Witness Bene-
o~s-e5 10 bet a dollar on q certain
r.-sa whose name was on the board 10
, nm in n race on the GuttenpurS
...r IN New Jersey. but TO his oiler
.-..sod rarfiod. Il can't take your
&c.. hYt will take your dollar and SEND
o., che truck. and charge you ten cents
..-,ieeion for sending it, The witness
tr.- uaid the accused dollar anu zen
-.~.s who al once telegraphed the oroer
-. the track. and ia few minutes an
answer came saying the MONEY 4"N 49,
.r'aced" at the track.
oo the walls OF the room were seVeral
-f..,r5s one of which read: NO betting
~ or perrnitted here" Another read'
..u commissions executed at the track
only" a.. o,t,-
o., nat the accused was interested IN
,hc he-,inr. except TO the extent OF MS
,--.-olssion for sending the order 10 the
-r.rk and the offer OF the witness not
having been accepted I'm the mousse OIL O'e
..,.e.a hint al the track in New jersey .
lrffiIG was 0Dllf iANN -"
>-.o~ Jersey. The statute makes II an
60 "a keep a house for betting OF
49, ne nurpose OF betting II the ac
hod taken the money or the WI
...s and carried It in person 70 the ~
.tora her II on the designated morse
hardly be contended that 'ha'
,.,,,id be sufficient proof That 'he nou .,a
ia question was used In VOCATION ~ ~.
s,,.,,te. and vet the legal erect .. ", 49,
was done practically amounts
same thing. c.o,,os and Mum
~, -orreeented the plaintiff In error
~ Attornev-General the Common
me case Of Gardner and ot lI
ctratton's administrator ~ I'm
c-,-o,it Court Of Nelson. Judge l'iD''.
49, -eyersed the decision OF the io"e'
~,o cose involved the oon7tructloin, , %
.,. I'm ~ the late = Is. Nelson' ~ %. 81,
.,.-ia county. who died IN 100, %5o,eo,
, ~ mat will an estate ~ Ne,ao'
'''.l9 o' ,sisting Of land and person
,,oe devised and bequeathed TOT .n
cd. ~ tostators daughter anu ~
lrs-.r which children were 1n"h a.
,-- eco The will also expressly pro
vts.1 arainst the property Delu3 ~.
a. .hc defts ~ the tcstator SOIL" %. i"
.e.4r .ha death or the udue"'N'
..,,,+,r TWO Of .he children men'l'n
a., .,. win He'd under age. A 1udgmen
..r obtained by the creditors OF John +
e.,1re- the testator's son-in-law' an'
.i. eYit brought 70 subject 20 the deot
90 e,-s,er A majority Of the estate cltl II
a ~ have been taken by said Eardne
fv Inheritance from the deceased lhldh
raulren. The Court held that the prop
.-t- VAS not liable 20 John F. Gardner
s.h.e holding that the question or M
'-,.-ee. FIN said property had been settle'
fa former suit. that the matter was re
sfH.cl.afa. that there was no fraud In IN
CONVEYANCE made by John +. Gardner u
DTS TWO surviving children or any con
trrent interest, II any such ne had bu
Wat the same was made upon full an
sufficient consideration. even had ther
taan anv interest belonging TO him II
fall estate at the time Of such convey
ll.a
M-ssrs rutherford and Page repre-
tar'sd the appellant and Cashe q Cole
man fhe appclees.
O.te- decisions were rendered as iol
loW.
Graybm against Brugh. From III
Circuit Court Of BOtetourt county. Ike
'ersed Judge Fauntleroy delivering opin
lr
Manchester Paper Mills Manufactur
az Company against Heth. trustee
From Hastings Court OF Manchester. DIS
missed for want Of Jurisdiction JUG