The herald., 1896-11-25
THE LAW UPON BETTING
Guirado Not Upheld in Re-
pudiating His Bet
UPON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
List of Court Decisions Upon the
Point
SUING ON A CONTRACT
Harry e. Silverman Tries to Recover
$500 as Damages
DR.. Sanborn Technically" Escapes From
Highlands Asylum
Harry e. Silverman Tries to Recover
$500 as Damages
DR.. Sanborn Technically" Escapes From
Highlands Asylum
The Scene at the Nadeau Vineyard on
December 2, 1SS9-The Wrenn Di-
yorce Suit Dismissed-Provision
for Stock Speculation

Now that the election is over and the
payment of election bets is a matter of
almost daily occurrence, it will be inter-
esting to know what the law is relating
to betting on elections, horse races or
similar events, as construed by the
courts of California from civil stand
point. There is a clause in the penal
code, however, which makes betting on
elections a misdemeanor, but the point
involved in the case in point is the time
in which either party to a wager may
disaffirm it, and recover the stakes de-
posted.
The case is that of r. c. Guirado, the
druggist on Main street, near Third,
against Samuel Dewey, the Teller of the
State Loan and Trust Company in the
Bryson block, and was decided yester-
day by Justice of the Peace William
Young.
1t appeared Guirado made bet OF
s12O with c. c. Crippen, business man
ager of the Evening Express, and sim
liar amount with NJ. Conn, the whole
sale merchant of 32O North Los An
geles street. The stakes were depos-
tied with Sam Dewey on the 3lst day OF
October last. Guirado bet on the gen
eral result that Bryan would be elected.
Crippen and Cohn, on the other hand,
were staunch supporters of Mckinley.
The day following the election, that is,
November Attn, Guirado, through his at
torreys served notice on Dewey not to
pay the money over to the other par
ties, and informed the stakeholGer III
writing that he "repudiated the wager,
which is a new name for pleading the
baby act" Dewey refused TO pay any
attention to the notice, and, later, paid
the money over to Crippen and Conn, the
successful parties. Guirado brought suit
before Justice Young against Dewey to
recover the amount of his stakes, but
Justice Young dismissed the suit on mo-
ton of Jay E. Hunter, esq, attorney for
the stakeholder, and held that Guirado,
the plaintiff, ought not to be heard in
a court of Justice" The motion to dis
miss was granted on the ground that
the complaint showed that Guirado did
not seek to rescind the bet until after
the election had taken place and the re-
suit become known.
A glance at Attorney Hunters brief
reveals q collection of decisions of the
supreme court of California on making
wagers. The earliest decision men,
toned in the supreme court reports con-
cerning wagers We're made on the Sey-
mour- Grant election in 1868, in which
the supreme court held that after the
election, had taken place and the result
had become known that recovery OF
the stakes could not be had by the
loser"
The most important as we'll as Wig
orous decision on betting was rendered
by Judge E. M. Ross, while justice of
the supreme court, in the case of Grid
ley VS.. Dorm, in 81 Cal. Judge Ross
there discusses the question at length,
and holds that parties to wager. before
the event has been decided, may re-
cover their stakes from each other or
from the stakeholder, but that after the
money has been lost and won, and the
result known. neither party should be
heard in court of justice" On the
other hand, before the event takes place
either party to the wager may repudi-
ate it, and the courts will uphold them
in so doing. The last case mentioned in
the brief is that of Dr. K. D. Wise VS..
l.. j. Rose, jr., both parties being well
known in this city. 1t therein appeared
that DR.. Wise made a wager of $500 with
Rudolph Spreckels, the San Francisco
millionaire, to trot a certain horse on
the race course at Stockton. Later
hwever DR.. Wise saw fit to repudiate
the wager and refused to trot his horse
and so notified L. ]. Rose. jr., the stake
holder. Notwithstanding this fact Rose
paid the money over to Spreckels. The
supreme court rendered judgment in
favor of Wise and quoted Judge Ross
decision above, ard held that before the
horse race had taken place Wise had q
perfect right to rescind the wager but
that he could not have done so after the
race was run.
During the election the forepart of this
month many thousands of dollars were
put UP to abide the result of the cleo
ton, both local and national and the
above decisions will prove of general
interest at the present time, as estab-
fishing the rights of wagers and those of
the stakeholder
so far as known. r. c. Guirado is the
only person who has attempted to get
out Of an election bet after it was known
he had lost.