The San Francisco call., 1896-03-24
POOLMEN MUST GIVE UP
Important Decision by Judge
Low on the Downtown
Resorts.
MONEY SENT BY TELEGRAPH.
The Judge Holds That This Process Is
Merely a Subterfuge to Evade
the Law.

An important decision was rendered by
to the poolroom question, which skaters
the only hope left by the booksellers under
the recent Wallace decision.
Last Thursday. in the case of James
Bowlan, 1t was argued by Attorney Julius
Kahn that if it was a crime to gamble on
horse race the parties who should suffer
were the ones who made the bets, and not
the commission men. The San Jose pool
room men with whom the money had
been placed through the Postal Telegraph
Company. and the patrons of the commits
sion-houses here. were the parties en-
gagged in the alleged violation of the ordi
nance. The poolroom men here as COM
mission men stood on identical grounds
with the men who bought and sold stocks
for another.
The decision of Judge Low is as follows:
The defendant in this case is charged with
selling pool-ticket outside Of the racetrack
order of the Board of Supervisors, No. 2361
His defense is that the bet was made by the
complaining witness with the bookmaking
firm of Messin ger 64Co. of San Jose, and that
he, the defendant, and the firm with which he
is employed acted as agents for the bettor
solely. 1t is claimed by the defendant that
by o.
Of Appeals of Virginia and reported in the
Southeastern Reporter Vol II, page 506),
governs this case, and tnat ne is not guilty OF
Claims was made in San Jose and that that
is where the bet was, accepted. That decision
in substance is that man in the State of Vir-
ginia, where betting on horseraces is prohib-
tied, who sends money to another State where
horseracing is not prohibited. either by tele-
graphic transfer, or sends IT by express, for
the purpose of playing 1t on horserace, and
the bet is accepted there, that the bet is made
in that case where it is accepted, viz: where
betting is not prohibited, and that the man
Iating the law Of the State of Virginia. There
is no question about that being the law, of
course.
Betting on a horse race is not prohibited in
this State. This case is a little different from
the Virginia case In that respect, because bet
ting on horse races is not prohibited by statute
in this State. But the Board of Supervisors has
seen fit, for reasons which seem proper to them
in any other place IN this City and County
other than on racetrack. Now this ordinance,
commonly known as the Ellert ordinance, re-
cites as reason for its passage as follows:
WHEREAS, 1t has become apparent that the
practice of gambling on horse races has become
alarmingy prevalent, and is the cause Of debauch-
ing many of our boys and young men. rendering
them unfit for the honorable occupations of life;
and whereas, this discreditable occupation with
all its vicious results, is allowed In all its
ness portions Of our City, enticing our youth
into habits which ultimately effect their ruin and
is no legislation prohibitory of this nefarious and
demoralIzing pursuit being conducted and carried
on, the present Legislature having failed TO pass
any of the bills introduced for that purpose; now
therefore the People Of the City and County of San
Francisco do ordain as follows"
And then passed this act. which limits betting
on horseraces TO the track. There is q line OF
decisions, which it is not necessary to quote
here now, which hold that In such cases
gambling of different kinds may be limited to