St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-04-05


to Prohibit Pool Selling - The
Statutes Do Not Grant the
Right-An Able Argument =
Case Continued to the 18th.
The case of the city against Gilbert o.
Hastings, commonly known as "Dick
Deadeye," which is to test the NOrdeen
anti-poOl room ordinance, was brought
up yesterday morning in the municipal
court before Judge Holt. Judge Frank
Brooks represented the proprietor Of
the Third street pool room. He with
drew his clients plea of nor guilty and
moved for dism: SSal of the case on the
grounds that the complaint failed TO
state facts sufficient to show any OffenSe
punishable by anysvalid statute Of the
state or ordinance of the city, and es-
pecIally because the ordinance relied
upon in the present case was beyond
the powers of the common council to
adopt, as well as repugEant to the laws
of the state.
Judge Brooks maintained that the
city charter did. not give any authority
to the council to pass an ordinance like
the one in question. Even. however, il
the charter did authorize the passage of
such an ordinance the council would
have been restricted in the passage of
it for the reason that such measure
was unreasonable and repugnant to
the principles of the constitution.
In speaking further to the subject the
judge said:
''In Minnesota" he said. 'there is no
common law offense known as gambling.
The legislature at ITS last session re-
fused 10 pass an anti pool roam Ordl-
nance, and it has expressly refused 10
say that betting Oh horse race in
pool room is gambling, although defin
ing gambling carefully, and saying in
express terms that wagering OH certain
things constitutes gambling. Judge
Vanderburgh has held that betting on
horse race Is gambling, and the city
council thought to get at the pool room
proprietors indirectly by convicting
| them of gambling, but in the case
which called for this decision from the
supreme court, it was admitted by the
defense that horse race was about to
| be run, while in the present instance
| there was no such admission, and the
| state could not show that the race was
| about to occur. A representation in
regard to anything is not game, and
| i'll the present instance there was moth
| ing nearer horse race than repre-
| sentation that one was about to occ ur."
Judge Brooks held that the ordinance
was invalid from the fact that the legS-
lature had expressly defined gaming,
and enumerated the various acts which
| constitute gaming in the state. When
the legislature conferred upon the city
| the power to make ordinances prohibit
ing gaming and gambling houses. it
conferred an authority which was
| limited by the statutes. The city of
Minneapolis could not therefore make
those acts OF gambling which were not
expressly made so by the general
statutes of the state. A number OF in
| stances were cited which bore out his
| argument.
1t was finally agreed to continue the
| case until April IA, to allow Assistant
City Attorney Purdy to prepare all
| argument, and answer tor the prosecu-
ton. The case is creating considerable
| in crest, especially among the sporting
fraternity, for Oil the decision in the
case hangs the fate of the pool rooms.