Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-01-16
INDICTMENTS STAND.
Ivy City Winter Racers Must Stand
Their Trials.
The DEMURRER OVERRULEDI
Judge Coles Decision a Severe Blow
to Bookmakers.
THE TRIAL NEXT MONTH.

Bookmaker Marvin, his three assistants
and Geo. H. Engeman must stand trial on
the indictments returned against them
recently. charging the first four men with
having set up and kept a gaming table or
gambling device in engaging in bookmak-
ing at the Ivy City race track last month,
and charging Engeman with having know
ingly permitted such gambling on the prem
ises controlled by him, Judge Cole this
morning overruling the motion of the in
dicted men to Quash the indictments There
were very few persons present when Judge
Cole rendered his decision, all Of the in
dicted parties being absent. Judge Coles
decision, while somewhat lengthy, was made
SO more particularly because of the nu-
merous authorities quoted.
Judge Cole explained that after exam
lining the numerous authorities quoted on
both sides he had arrived at a conclusion
with much less difficulty than he had first
supposed possible. After reading the in
dictments and stating the contentious of
the prosecution and defense, he said the
first contention of the defense was that
bookmaking was not a gambling device,
and secondly. that il it were, the act of
1881, repealed the act Of 1883, which re-
ferred to keeping and setting up of gaming
'ooASS VI other SdmDNnS devices.
The First Point.
As to the first contention, Judge Cole said
that he was clearly of the opinion that
betting on horse race was gambling, and
that the practice of bookmaking was the
keeping of a gaming table or device. al
though there were respectable authorities
holding to the contrary He was satisfied.
however that betting on a horse race was
the engaging in a game of chance, which
therefore made the wagering on it gam
ping. Further, explained Judge Cole the
act OF 1898 clearly defined what were games
OF chance, and correct Interpretation of
that act itself unquestionably made book
making gambling device, or a game of
chance.
Second Point.
AS to the contention of the defense that
the indictments set out no offense. Judge
Cole dismissed the contention with the re-
marx that the term bookmaking was
sumcientiy explicit to notify the defend
ants with what they were charged.
The claim of the indicted men that the
act of 1891 repealed the act of 1883 was
then discussed by the court, the Judge ex-
planning that repeal by implication was not
favored by the courts, and that that man.
ner of repeal was the only one suggested.
3 &pfz Two ReiS ~rsferred to Two -enttraiS dif-
tetedsOneklses. and there was nothing. said
Judge Cole, to indicate that Congress in
tenoed tnat the act of 1891 should take the
place OF the former one. The debates in
Congress did not mention the act of 1881
and It did not, therefore, appear that II
was the purpose of Congress to repeal the
nrst act. Both acts stand said Judge Cole.
ana While neither prohibited horse racing.
the act OF 1888 did prohibit the setting up
and the keeping of a gaming table or other
gambling device, and the court remarked
Judge Cole. was clearly Of the opinion that
betting. bookmaking or any other form of
wagering was violation Of that act
Both In Force.
The act Of 1891, explained Judge Cole re-
ferred more particularly to the bettor, rath-
or than to the person who set up or kept
a gaming table, Furnishing the bettor, while
the act Of 1855 punished only the keeper
or setter up Of the gaming table or gam
bling device. Hence, betting on a horse
race being prohibited by the act Of 1883, by
that act prohibiting the keeping or setting
up OF gaming table or other gambling de-
vice, and the act Of 1891 making it unlaw-
ful Tor persons to lay or take a bet or
wager, Judge Cole decided that, as both
acts still remain in force, neither the prac-
tice OF bookmaking, pool selling nor any
other form of betting on horse racing was
lawful here, nor the acceptance by a patron
of the bookmaker or pool seller Of a bet or
wager.
Motions Overruled.
Judge Cole closed his decision by remark
ing that his conclusion was that both acts
are in force. Neither. however, prohibits
horse racing. The former (of 1889 does not
prohibit betting or making books or pools
upon horse races unless 1t be done at such
time and place and in such manner as to
amount to setting up or keeping a gaming
table under the proper construction Of that
act; but that 1t does prohibit. The later act
INF &c oxu-ffh hsv,t H.
its mentioned in it all betting, gambling,
making of books or pools on horse races
whether same is done in such manner and
with such contrivances as constitute setting
up gaming table or not. AS the indict-
ment sufficiently charges an offense under
the act of 1883 Of setting up a gaming table
within the mile limit. the motion to quash
is overruled. The other Indictment is SUBJ
stantialy the same. the only difference be-
ing that 1t alleges the offense to have been
committed in the District without the terri
torial limits mentioned in the act of 1891,
and the motion to quash in that case is also
overruled."
EnReman Also.
Judge Cole also explained that his decision
applied equally as well to the Indictment
against Engeman. and the motion to quash
that one would also be overruled.
The Trial.
Upon the conclusion of Judge Coles de-
cision. Mr.. Coleman. of counsel for the in
QlCtcu ulcil, IcHidThcQ. w e are ready Tor
trial. your HONOR
well. I am, too," replied Judge Cole,
pleasantly, but 1 do not, Of course know
about the district attorney"
II will see, your honor" said Mr. Birney.
that the indicted parties get trial at the
earliest day practicable, but 1 cannot now
state just when that will be-"
I'VE would like trial. your honor" ex-
planned Mr.. Coleman, this or next week.
Many of our witnesses. living at a distance.
are now here, and an immediate trial would
save them much expense"
District Attorney Birney stated to the
court that three important trials Dr. Leon
and Shoemaker. charged with murder ana
Mrs Winslow, charged with abortion, would
occupy his attention for several weeks, and
therefore an immediate trial was out of the
question. Judge Cole suggested to counsel
for the men that they confer with the dis
trict attorney as to the date of the trial
but intimated that its date was a matter
almost entirely within the discretion of
that officer.
Not Until Next Month.
To Star reporter Mr.. Birney subsequent
ly stated that he could hardly try the case
earlier than the middle OF next month.
Such a delay, or. indeed. a longer one
would, he thought, impose no hardship
upon the men, and persons in jail should
have precedence. 1.-The parties" significant
ly remarked the district attorney, can rest
assured that they will be tried at the first
opportunity. and the community can rest