The San Francisco call., 1896-03-24
certain places Thsi question, however, is not
raised in this case.
The defen here ic that no hpt is m ade in San

certain places. Thst question, however, is not
The defense here is that no bet is made in San
Francisco; that the poolroom people do not
make bets with their patrons, but simply re-
ceive the money on commission and transmit
it TO San Jose and there bet it for them outside
the jurisdiction OF this City and transact the
business there. If that is so. then, OF course,
no offense has been committed in San Fran
cisco. 1t then comes down to simply ques-
ton of fact as to what they are really doing.
What are the facts, then. as shown by the eyi-
dence, both parol and documentary, in this
case?
The defendant received the money of the
complaining witness in this case and issued
card to him, designating on that card what
that bet was. 1t was a bet on horse called
Cabrillo of % cents straight-that Is, that the
horse Cabrillo would will the race; and 1t was
made in conformity with the odds posted up
in the room of the defendant here in San
Francisco. When the money was placed an
additional cents was claimed by him as a
commission for transmitting the money TO San
Jose. 1t is claimed here that q like amount
was required on every bet, whatever the
amount of the bet might be. l understand
from the evidence that whether the bet was %
cents. $25 or 500 the same amount was ce-
manded, viz: cents and no more. That is,
the compensation Is not regulated by tn value
of the services rendered. And that would
lead me to suppose that this 5 cents was mere
ly put on as subtertuge TO take the case out
of the provisions OF the ordinance. Because, If
they were charging for their services they GER
talnly would charge in proportion to the SER
"A
charge the same for making bet of 25 cents
and transmitting the 25 cents to San Jose
and placing it on race and going to the ex
pense of telegraphing, as he would for making
q bet of $25 or 800 and transmitting that
The evidence shows that it costs about IL
per cent for transmitting the money down to
San Jose and IL pei cent for transmitting
back the winnings. 1t would be wor tn more
to send $25 to San Jose than 25 cents. The
evidence shows that rhe telegraph company
charges IL per cent for transmission That
would be, on $25, 371a cents, and if the bettor
won at even money, another rs cents would
have to be paid to the telegraph company to
send the money back from San Jose. Then
there is all the expense of the leased wire and
say nothing of the rent of the place
of business here in the City, clerk
hire for making out. betting-sheets, etc,
penses of running the business, which would
amount to many dollars per day. OF course
he gets 5 per cent additional from the firm in
San Jose, and that leads me to think that hav.
ing received commission of 5 per cent from
the firm in San Jose, II makes the people here
the agents for the firm in San Jose, and they
are acting here in San Francisco as their
agents, and the betting is closed here in San
Francisco through this agency here.
The fourth race, the one in which this bet
was made, included ninety-one bets-that is
if even counting the two bets on ticket-that
sidered straight and place two bets, or only
one bet, and he said. :" He would charge 5
cents Tor Dotn OF tnem, giving MIN The beneht
of both place and straighr there were ninety
one bets made on the fourth race, aggregating
$117 so. The amount won by the bettors was
$67 so, leaving profit to the book maker OF
Just $50. Who made this? The witness inst
said that Messenger g. Co. of San Jose made
that, less the commission they paid him, for
obtaining these bets for them. The defendant
claims that he did not make that $67 so, but
simply made 5 per cent on those amounts OF
money, and in addition thereto cents on
each bet. Now, 5 cents on each Of the ninety
one bets would amount to 81 So. But. as ne
graph company to send $117 80 to San Jose,
and at the same rate it would cost ST. OIL to
send back the $67 so, this So 81 would come
out of his profit of $4 So and leave only ST "a
on that business transacted on that fourth race.
Assuming that they made about the same on
made about SO "a as the days profit Mes
thai would leave SIS s5. Add that to the other
the 81 "a, and that would be 81 40 for trans
acting that volume of business, out of which
must be paid ali these expenses.
commission from them for all the money
send" 1t seems to me that that would c0nsti-
tute, as / said before, an agency, and that the
bets would be consum mated aud closed here in
San Francisco. through their agent here. In
the transcript, folio 15, he also says:
..The Court-Who is the bet made with7
"Mr. Kahn-lt is made with Messenger & Co.
of San Jose. That is the bet is made by the
complaining witness with them. a
"The Court-This man il not betting with
Messingea& d Co.?
"Mr. Kahn-He is told before he gets the
ticket that this firm don't do any betting, and
that his he. is with Messenger 4 Co. OF San
Jose"
The evidence shows the ticket was made out
and given TO him without anything being said