The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-02-08
NOT GAMBLING TOOLS


Front ssreet n place wRexe gentlemen
meet for social pastssne. not gazuhsing. 20
says Judge Glasgow Of the municipal
eourt ssch being ssas character OF the
club. he decides that the gambling ap-
gambling apparatus. and orders Chief
Rogers TO return It TO Charles Shaw.
manager OF the ciub- Ths c>se was de-
csded yesterday morning on the argu-
menta On . motion to order the destruction
Of me ciabfs furniture. seized when the
last raid was made. Shaw hzving been
acquitted some time ago OF conducting
gambling game.
CITY Attorney winssock In addressing
the court said that the city ordinance foi-
lowed state statute and THAI the SUI
preme court had decided 10 the case of
the state versus Eugene Way that gam
bling property could be destroyed. that
the city ordinance being exactly like the
state law. 1t followed tfaf she city had
ffe power to destroy gambling smpae.
ments. He maintained that in the case of
the city against Shaw. wherein the de-
fendanf was charged with running . gam
bling house. the court decided that there
was not enough testimony 70 convict. As q
matter Of fact, however. officers OF ex-
perience had testified that the house by
common rspute was = gambling house.
and that Shaw himself on three occasions
practically admitted the fact. and that he
would not have 1t pulled. for 500.
It was claimed on behalf Of the city
that the destruction OF gambling impie-
ments was not part OF the punishment
but q means Of preventing gambling In
the future, and that Judge Glasgow. as
the Judicial branch OF the city govern
ment. ought to order the properly de-
sfroyed and thereby assist the authorities
IN suppressing a practice so dangerous to
the morals OF the community.
John Wiley commended for Shaw that
there was no evidence to warrant the be-
lief tsaat the Union Club was run for
gambling purposes or that any OF the
property seized was gambling furniture.
He maintained that 1t was necessary to
convict before the court would have any
Jurisdiction to destroy, and that the court.
having passed final judgment OF acquittaa.
had lost jurisdiction to order the alleged
gambling property to be destroyed.
why" said John Wiley, as he
reached UP and touched the ceiling. your
honor has not even jurisdiction 20 fine me
should be guilty Of improper conduct In
the presence of the court"
At this Judge Glasgow's face grew red
and he began to exhibit some interest In
the case.
Mr.. Wiley frankly admitted to the court
the authorities on the point at issue were
far from numerous.
Mr.. Winstock closed for the city. reitev-
attng the statement that Chief Rogers
had testified without equivocation that
from thirteen years experience such q
place as the Union Club and such mater
ials as he found there were for no other
purposes than gambling. He closed with
a strong appeal for an order to destroy
the gambling furniture, in order that the
Efforts OF the chief OF police toward the
furtheraace OF public decency might meet
with substantial support.
Judge Glasgow then delivered his de-
cision. He SAID In substance that he
had NOT rendered final Judgment in the
case and still had jurisdiction He be-
1ieved that In order to convict Shaw of
running the Union club as gambling
resort. more positive testimony should be
adducesa than was given al the trial. The
only testimony then given We're certain
statements which Shaw male to the
officers but nothing that he said was
Inconsistent with the theory that his
club was merely pleasure resort. Rich
men Nigh. congre gate there for the pur-
pose of playing for pleasure and yet IL
they did not meet and play for gain they
would rot be liable for gambling nor
would Shaw be liable for running
gambling Place Such games were run
In many private houses OF the city and
that IL certainly would not be held pos
sible to convict such persons OF gambling.
A charge of this kind should be viewed
with all the attending circumstances.
Neither a roulette wheel nor any ether
device was unsawfni III itself for II might
be used for lawful purpose. TIE Judge
said further that Ii was possible that
the chief did testify that the reputation
OF the Union club Was that Of a gambling
house: IN fact he did nos doubt but that
the chief 80 testified, but that he did
not hear 1t. He felt that the only Theory
upon which he could order destruction
OF property alleged TO be used for gamh-
ing purposes was by proving satisfactor-
lily that they we're 40 used. and in his
opinion this had not been done. He
rasen denied the order and In a few min
utes on appeal Of Wiley, ordered the
goods returned.