The San Francisco call., 1896-03-24

about where the bet was made, and if he de-
rived any information from the back of that
ticket in regard to their way OF doing business
his information was derived after his bet was
made and after his ticket was handed to him,
and hot before.
"Q.-Did you get this card before you made
"Q.-Then you had no chance to read that
until after your transactions was complete?
A.-Not until alter my money was passed to
them
"Q.-Then they handed you piece of paper
similar to this one? A.-Yes, sir.
,"Q.-You had no chance to read that con-
But it does not make any difference what Is
printed on this card, or that they have as
many signs as they have put up in the betting
room that there is no betting. The question
here is simply what they are actually doing
You could not say if you. went into q place
where faro was being played that because
that no faro,playing was to be permitted that
they were not actually playing faro. That
would be absurd. 1t cuts no figure what signs
they have placed about the room The ques-
ton is, Did they do any betting? Were they
selling pool tickets?
Alter all it comes down to the original prop
osition: Was the defendant and his firm max
ing book on the race at Ingleside and selling
/ pool tickets Oh the same? l am satisfied be-
yond q reasonable doubt that they were, and
that the San Jose connection with the firm of
Messenger & Co. was established merely 10 get
the track odds as telegraDhed from the track
TO San Jose, and such other information as to
jockeys, and so forth as was necessary to make
the bets. That any man or firm would go to
the trouble and ex pense of procuring bett0rs
for some book-making firm in San Jose without
any interest other than this per cent, which
is mentioned here, is simply absurd, because
it would not pay to do it. 1t would not half
pay the expenses of running this place alone
/ am satisfied that this circumlocution Office
with which Goldtree q Co. are doing business
that Office in San Jose which could be properly
styled ca circumvention office'0 was estab
lished for that purpose.
1t reminds me very much OF this class OF
liquor cases where they sell you q cracker
and give away q glass of whisky, or claim that
they ale acting under restaurant license be-
cause they have gas stove on which e chop
or an egg can be cooked. IT is simply an effort
to do indirectly what the law says shall not
be done. The law frowns upon all such at
tempts to evade the plain meaning. of the
statutes and strip the transactions OF all sub
Now if what Mr.. Schwartz says is true, that
they are paying him a commission, then thew
are the agents here of that firm, and every bet
bet and as the agent for that firm, and the bet
is taken and accepted right there and then on
the spot.
side of the city where thing is prohibited and
leave O man in that place to do that pr0hib-
tied business, and then simply say he Is inno-
cent because he lives in another place where it
is not prohibited, and consequently the law
has not been broken.
There are two views to take of this One is
that they are acting as the agent and II so the
betting is done here in San Francisco. am
satisfied this whole method is pursued simply
for the purpose of avoiding the ordinance, and
they are selling pools in this City in violation
of that ordinance. There are several other
things that could say about it that lead me
to think so in regard 10 these transfers. 1t is
carried on, in such yay simply to try and
show that they are doing II in San Jose. All
these things are perfectly useless-the sending
a ticket the day after the money is paid out,
and so on.
The defendant was found guilty and or
dered to appear for sentence this morning.
The other defendants are /. Goldtree, B.
Messenger, Frank Smith, L. Rothschild,
Hugh Rothschild, Mark Jacobs, ]. Messin-
ger and L. Black.