The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-10-17
DO NOT COME UNDER THE STAT
UTE WHICH 3REFERs TO
GAMBLING
RISE AND FALL OF MARKETS
JUDGE OTIS HoHDs IN A MEMO
RANDUM NOT IN ANY SENSE A
GAME.
MONEY SO LOST IS GONE FOR GOOD.
They Go Down Loses His
Coin.

He who bets money with a bucket
shop operator on the rise OF stocks or
produce will lose it If the stocks or
produce fall far enough, The same
I fatestwill befall him. If he bets,51the
bucket shop man that the stocks are
going to fall and they go up. Judge
Oils practically enunciated the fore
going proposition in a memorandum
/ nleu yesterday in the district court
Inc case was that of>sW. S. Rogers,
VINO has sued John Gibbons and others
TO recover certain moneys lost by Mr.
I Hogers4 in Mr. Gibbens, bucket shop
The case came before Judge Otis on a
demurrer to the plaintiffs complaint
Ihe demurrer sustained, the facts.
as set forth in the judges memoran-
dum being in substance as follows. s.
~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ae"bucket shop
IN certain rooms in this city, Upon
eoeIendants representation that ISthe
prices of stocks registered by his tele-
graphic apparatus were S the actual
prices registered at the time, Of such
STOCKS and grains in those markets
ana believing them to be true. plaintiff
was by defendants induced to and did
Z make bets tWithntheml upon the 7Auctu-
atlons OF such prices as shown by these
JnaC
ne mas right to recover back the
money lost by him, under 6593 Statutes
OF Minnesota 1894, which, among other
things, provides that whoever, by
playing at cards, dice or other game,
or by betting on the hands or sides of
! such as are gambling, loses to any
other person SO playing or betting any
sum of money and pays the same to
the winner, may sue for the recovery
OF the money So paid.
MS Is statute, says Judge Otis,
in derogation of the common law, and
y is not by intendments to be extended
beyond its exact language and mean
& ing: 4 do not think that a person who
bets on the future state Of the market
is within the language or meaning of
the statute relied on, and as much
seems to be implied, If not directly
held in Franklin VS.. Stoddart, Sd Mimi,
247. The rise and fall of the markets
1s not in any sense g. game, nor are
the persons so engaged betting on the
hands or sides OF those gambling, but
are themselves principals In gambling
transactions, having in them an ele-
ment OF chance, but not founded on or
the result of any game within the
meaning of the statute ss ssiftsss-sa y
Plaintiff further alleges that these
devices for recording these market.
prices were SO under the control of the
defendants that they did not truly
show the changes In such prices, but
were false, and showed in each case
that the marketahad gone against the
plaintiff, and that therefore the de-
PENDANTS, even under this arrangement,
never became entitled to these moneys.
1t is not alleged, that in fact the mar
ket did not go against the plaintiff. In
conclusion Judge Otis rsays3Asstatsss
while 1t is a rule Of law that the
one Who has advanced and turned over
to stakeholder the amount bet, may
recover the same back by demanding
1t before 1t has been paid over to the
winner. 1t does not seem to me that
plaintiff. has brought himself within
this rule. He seeks to recover the
moneys he has SO placed in defendants
hands, but while he charges that de-
= PENDANTS used deceit in recording and
announcing the state of the market.
he does not show that the market did
not in fact go against him to the full
amount so advanced, whereby defend
ants would have express authority
from him to appropriate all the money
to their own use; or that they did not
make such appropriation under these
very conditions. $500 wae1
1T is not enough that there was de-
ce1t pract1ced by defendants or that
PLAINTIFF was frozen. OUT as the com
plant alleges; it must further appear
3 that the conditions existed which gave
plaintiff a right to a return of the stake
money ver.1fI n
If defendant by the actual f1uctu-
atoms of the markets, in fact won the
bets made, and in consequence thereof
appropriated the moneys by plaintiff
advanced prior to demand therefor on
his part the law will leave plaintiff
just where he has placed himself, how
ever wrongful and wicked the transac
ton of defendants, part therein may
have BEEN