The San Francisco call., 1896-02-22
Judge Wallace Sustained the I'm.
portant Decision Against
Them.
DRIscOLLs CONVICTION STANDS.
Bets Cannot Be Made Except at the
Track Where the Races Are
Run.

| The finishing touch to the wallow of
trouble i'll which the poolroems have been
| tioundering was added by Judge Wallace
| yesterday. The latter affirmed the de-
cision of the Police Court, and in short
opinion sustained the contention that the
betting in the poolrooms was in no way
betting within the law; that the money so
| bet was never taken out to the track, but
was handled in the poolrooms only.
AS a result of the decision the poolrooms
are closed. Their business has been most
precarious of late, anyway, and now they
have no excuse for existence.
The case decided was that against Jerry
| Driscol. He was arrested for violating
order No. 1851, which is the one forbidding
bets upon horseraces except at the track.
Driscoll was tried before Judge Joachim
sen, John T. Dare prosecuting, and his
conviction speedily followed. The evil
dence was such as to bring the validity of
the ordinance directly in question, and
Driscoll's conviction was a triumph of the
order No. 1851. The case was appealed to
the Superior Court, and before Judge Wal
lace it met similar fate.
second case, that of George w. Givens,
was also passed upon, but in that charge
the judgment Of the lower court was re-
versed. The complaint did not allege
! facts sufficient to sustain the charges
made. The opinion rendered in the Givens
case was as follows:
| Givens was convicted below of a violation of
order No. 1851, prohibiting betting upon a
| horserace outside of the track where the race
was to be run. He was arrested upon a sworn
complaint, which, however, does not substan-
| tally allege that he had violated the ORDER
Supposing John Doe" mentioned in the COM
| plaint to be the defendant George D. Givens
it is not alleged, even IN substance, in the
complaint that he was party TO any bet made
on horserace.
If a prosecution for perjury committed in
swearing to the complaint were attempted it
must necessarily fall, because the complaint
does not charge that that or any other offense
whatever was committed by John Doe," or by
GlVens, or by any one else. Judgment re-
yersed.
The opinion of the court was as follows:
Driscoll was convicted in the Police Court of
violation of order No. 1861 of the Board of
Supervisors, which prohibits the making of
Wagers upon horseraces unless made within
the incloSure of the race track where the race
is to be run, and from the judgment of convic-
ton this appeal is taken. This order No 1851
was under consideration here on former
caslon in the case OF Isidor Messenger, who
had been convicted of its violation and the
judgment was reversed here, because it ap-
peared by the record in that case that the bet
there made upon the horserace was in fact
made at the track and not elsewhere. The
record in that case showed that Messenger had
received here in the City money to be hereafter
betted at the track, and that the identical
money so received by him had been actually
carried 70 the track and Wagered there. OF
course such a transaction as that was not
violation OF the order No. 1851, which had not
undertaken to forbid the mere transmission of
money to the racetrack with directions to
wager it there.
But in this case of Driscoll no such fact ap-
pears. The money wagered was deposited at
the defendants poolroom, 20 Leidesdorff
street outside the racetrack, just previous to
the horses going to the post; the money de-
posted was not sent TO the racetrack at ALL
nor betted there; the horse selected proving to
be winner the depositor of the money re-
ceived payment of mis- bet at the poolroom
within eighteen minutes after his deposit had
been made there.
DriscoI offered no evidence, and the court
below, upon the evidence OF the people, held
that the so-called deposit made at the pool
room was mere sham that the real transac-
t1on amounted to bet then presently made at
the poolroom. In view OF all the circumstances
the ruling was correct, and the judgment is,
therefore, affirmed.