The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-12-23
DRAW POKER IN COURT.
New York Supreme Court CalIe
Upon to Decide q Fine Point.


Upon to Decide a Fine Point.
The supreme court of the state Of
New York in solemn session yesterday
acted as arbiter in the great American
game of draw poker as introduced by
Schenck to his royal nig.lness the
Prince of Wales and confided by Hoyle
says the New York Times.
In the summer of 1880 party met
| in a poker game at the Surf hotel, Fire
Island. Among the opponents were
David S. S. Sam1nis, the proprietor Of
the hotel; Jeremiah S. Fisher q capt.
talist; Albert X. Cheesebrough and his
brother and Clifford E. Smith. The
game was an interesting one and had
gone along smoothly until Mr.. Fisher
asked Mr.. Cheesebrough how many
cards he had drawn.
II am not obliged to tell YOU" said
Mr. Cheesebrough.
Then IN ask the dealer said Mr..
Fisher
He has no right to tell, and 1 will
not allow him to give the inforna-
tion,' retorted Mr.. Cheesebrough.
Then came an argument, Mr.. Fisher
claiming it as his right, and Mr..
Cheesebrough taking. the other stand.
| I'll bet hundred I'm right" said
Mr.. Fisher.
I'll take the bet" said Mr.. Cheese
brougfh. Want any nlore?"
Yes. I'll bet another hundred"
The game broke. UP and the players
adjourned to the baHoom, where the
stake was deposited with Mr.. Samnlis.
The bet was written out on paper and
it was decided 10 send the question to
the Spirit of the Times for a decision.
All hands agreed and Sept. 20, 1890,
the following appeared in the paper:
ID. S. s. S., Fire Island, N. Y, In
poker game the cards are drawn.
and before a bet is made A. asks the
dealer how many cards B drew. Is
the dealer compelled TO answer, pro-
vided ne knows? What is the rule on
the point?- depends on circumstan-
ces. Any player, previous to raising
his hand or making a bet, may de-
mand of the dealer how many cards he
drew, and the dealer must reply cor
rectiy. By raising his hand or max
ing bet the player forfeits the right
to inquire and removes the obligation
to answer. Under observation-disclosures is
| the dealer obliged or allowed to state
how many cards any one but himself
drew
! After this there was other matter
written and printed on the subject, and
Mr. Cheesebrough asserted that ne
had won, and Mr.. Fisher said the bet
was stand off. Meanwhile Mr.. Sam
mis- continued TO hold the stakes and
let the principals fight it out Mr..
Fisher offered to leave the matter to
two men to decide, and if this was not
satisfactory he offered to flip up a cent
for the $400
But Mr.. Cheesebrough said "No."
lie declared he would have the whole
$500, as he was in the right, or else
he would hold out till doom's day.
One, two, three years passed and
still the question was not settled to
the satisfaction of MIR. Cheeseorough
or Mr.. Fisher, and Mr.. Samnlis in the
meantime held the stakes, though now
he wishes he had not, for that luxury
promises to cost him $4S in interest,
besides a lot OF trouble.
the return of his 5000. Mr.. Samnlis,
refused to give it UP. In disgust Mr..
Fisher finally went into court, suing
Mr. Sarnms for his 5000, with interest.
Mr.. Sammis and Mr.. Cheesebrough
both appealed to Hoyle for confirma-
ton of their position. but Justice
Beach. before whom the matter was
Drought, celdly referred them to
Blackstone and the statutory laws of
the state.
The attorneys for the defendant then
moved to dismiss on the ground that
the wager was made on a fixed rule
of law. Justice Beach denied this, and
when all the evidence was in directed
a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum
of $24S, being the sum claimed with in
terest.
1t is claimed the case will be carried
through to the court OF appeals.