The record-union., 1893-09-09
In AGREED Case.
1t Was Settled Yesterday in Judge
Catlin's Court.
lie Holds What is Known as the
Wheel of Fortune IS
Banking Game.

Early yesterday morning Sheriff
O'Neil and Deputy Sheriff Hendricks ar
rested Harry Ketchum for running a
wheel of fortune game. The Sheriff had
been notified on the preceding evening
by ketchum that the game would be
opened, so he went to the place yester-
day and made the arrest.
When the case was called in the Police
Court yesterday Ketchum's counsel, w.
A. Anderson, interposed demurrer on
the ground that the complaint did not
state facts sufficient to constitute a public
offense, and that the court had no juris-
diction.
The court made pro forma overruling
of the demurrer, as defendants counsel
consented thereto, and wished the case to
go to the Superior Court. 1t was an
agreed case, for the purpose Of getting an
authoritative decision.
ID. W. Johnson, counsel for Sheriff
ONell, concurred in the statement, and
after recess. to enable the attorney to
see II Judge Catlin would hear it in the
afternoon, Sheriff 0'Nen and Deputy
Hendrjcks testified TO playing at the
game in order to make the arrest. They
produced the layout and explained it.
After argument by counsel, ketchum
Ills counsel moved for new trial, and
on being refused, gave notice of an ap-
peal to the Superior Court.
The necessary proceedings to that end
were taken at once, and the case brought
before Judge Catlin yesterday afternoon.
The wheel of fortune which ketchum
was engaged in running when arrested
was set up in the courtroom, ready to
have the modus operandi of the game eX-
planned by experts il necessary.
After some delay w. a. Anderson and
Charles I. Jones, who were counsel for
ketchum, appeared. Then came Hiram
w johnson, counsel for Sheriff O'Neil,
and in short time Judge Catlin, who
had been notified, took his seat on the
bench.
The testimony taken by Stenographer
Bing Brier in the Police Court in the
morning had been written up and was
ready for Introduction and the wheels of
justice began to revolve, to the great
detriment Of the wheel of fortune.
Mr.. Anderson read the testimony taken
in the Police Court.
He argued that there was no evidence
produced by the prosecution to show that
THIS game is prohibited by law, and read
the section ofthe code covering gam bling.
lie said that the evidence in this case
does not show this to be banking game,
and that the Act itself discloses the intent
OF the Legislature, and does not mention
the wheel Of fortune.
The Act, he said, does not make any
one guilty of a misdemeanor, except
those who play against the game.
Producing the original Act from the
Office OF the Secretary of State, he showed
that on the amendment OF Senator Gou-
cher the wheel of fortune was stricken
from the list of prohibited games.
Hiram w. johnson explained to the
court that this was a test case, brought to
11ra0 hot
game or not. Both parties wish to see
the thing decided by higher court, in
order to know what is the status of the
game. Both sides had agreed to waive
technical points, and let the case rest
upon the statute as it reads, and the game
as 1t was being played yesterday morning
Nnen the arrest was made.
There is absolutely nothing in the Act
or elsewhere 10 indicate that the Legis-
Iature intended to exempt this game from
the operation Of the law.
Mr.. Johnson then eXemplified the man
ner OF playing the game, and claimed that
the lOsings Of the players were put into a
common fund or bank, and their win
nlngs paid from the same bank or fund.
THE CARROLL CASE.
A case was tried in Fresno. he said.
with regard to this very wheel, and the
person convicted in the Superior COurt.
1t was appealed to the Supreme Court.
and remanded simply on account of the
absence of sufficient facts to warrant
conviction.
Nobody, so far as Mr.. Johnson knew.
ever had the temerity in the Carroll case
TO question that this was banking game.
Judge Terry, as an expert, gave testi-
mony as 10 what constitutes a banking
game, and his explanation was accepted
by the court
Mr.. Johnson cited a number of decis-
HrNfn nj hr,, -. -.
and showing that ii was not deemed
necessary to specify device or game by
name, and all that was necessary was to
show that it is a banking game He
claimed that it is only variation of rou-
lette, and that in several States it has been
held to be 50.
Charles 7. Jones, for the defense, argued
that the game Is similar in principle to
the pool-boX, and he thought there was
no question as to the intent of the Legis-
Iature TO exempt this game from the
operation OF the law. The law does not
define what banking game is.
Judge Catlin made some remarks aftAr
hearing the ratio of payments on the diff
ferent spots, to the effect that if the person
manipulating the wheel proposed to nav
three to one or six to one he must have a
bank behind him from which to nav such
losses. IL might be small or 1t might be
large, but there must be a bank IL nro-
vide against bad luck on his part.
In buying pools, also, the buver bases
his judgment on what he knows or
thinks he knows, of the speed and bottom
OF the horses, and does not trust entirely
80 chance as in this game.
He did not think the statute was based
on the doctrine that the bettor was liable
to punishment and, not the one who ran
the wheel, as counsel had suggested. The
law puts both on the same footing.
The only question to be decided is
whether 1t is a banking game or not. His
mind had come TO a conclusion with ra-
gard to it, without taking into considera-
ton the Carroll case. 1t is clearly a bank
ing game. The man who runs the wheel
stands ready to accept all bets. Whether
from one person or fifty, and to pay if he
loses. He stands ready to pay the odds
OF six to one ii necessary.
The evidence shows that he had an
amount OF money in front of him esti-
mated by different witnesses no to az
much as $3.50.
He should, he said, hold that the evi-
dence shows II was banking game. and
the Judgment OF the court below is af-
hrmed.
EVERYBODYS COLUMN