The evening bulletin. [volume] (Maysville, Ky.) 1887-1905, 1896-07-18
AGAINST ROBY RAGING.
Decision of the Case in the Indiana su-
preme Court.

INDIANAPOLIS, July 1S.-In the case
of the state of Indiana on the relation
of Claude Matthews, governor versus
| Caroline Forsythe and others, common
ly known as the Roby case the decision
of the Lake circuit court was reversed,
the opinion being written by Judge
McCabe. The judge, in his opinion,
gays:
THE grounds for the motion for a
new trial are: First, that the finding
of the court is not sustained by the evil
dence; second, that the finding of the
court is contrary to law. The last
ground is the only one relied upon by
the appellant in its brief
He says that the question the court
has to deal with is somewhat similar to
the questions involved i'll the state ex
rel. Duensing VS.. Roby ct al He saws
that i'll that case the prohibitory statute
was sought to be evaded, but the SUI
preme court so construed the statute as
to make the evasion Intellectual. He
says: THAT decision seems to have
been cheerfully acquiesced in by the
people attempting to carry on race
meetings in Lake county. But strik-
ing coincidence occurs. No sooner was
the former decision finally confirmed
than arrangements were set on foot,
not only to continue the racing at Roby,
but arrangements were made to CON
struct two other race tracks as close to
Roby as they could conveniently be
made. A marked feature of the evil
dence is that horse racing at any par
ticular place can only be made profit
able by keeping up continuous racing"
Judge McCabe quotes part of the
evidence, notably that of John Condor.
one of the defendants. He shows that
the evidence all goes to show that only
continuous racing is profitable, and he
says: ITO say that this court can not
judicially know from their evidence
that the object and the only object and
purpose i'll building the two new tracks
was to get back the two thirds of the
time for racing taken away by the
statute and the former decision, is but
to say that the law requires the courts
to abdicate their common sense and
close their eyes to facts which all rea-
sOnable beings understand and interpret
i'll the same way"
In discussing the evidence as to the
joint ownership of the three tracks,
Judge McCabe points out: THE same
judges act at all the tracks, the same
horses run, the same bookmal1ers being
of a gambling device, act
at all the tracks; the same starters, in
short, the meeting, with all of its Incl
dents, is simply transferred from one
track to another at the end of each
period of 10 days.
The question is gravely asked how
far such races or tracks must be apart to
constitute different and separate race
meetings? That is a question not in
volved in the record. 1t will be time |
enough to decide that question when it |
arises. 1t is sufficient for the present to |
hold as we do that under the facts |
and circumstances disclosed by the un-
disputed evidence the races conducted |
1t the several tracks is but one coming
together of people, horses, owners,
gamblers and spectators, is but one as
'embly Of persons for the purpose of |
trial of speed, and there
lore is but one race meeting instead of
many"