The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-03-15
IN THE SUPREME COURT
An Opinion Handed Down in
the Race Track Case.
AN IMMORAL COMBINATION
The Court Gives an Essay on the Ethics
OF Horse Racing and Grants a
New Trial-Pigott's First
Dissenting Opinion.
Special Dispatch 10 the Standard.


Helena, March 1.-THE supreme
court to-day handed down five opin-
ions. None were OF particular interest
except one that came from the district
court of Fergus county 1t was inter-
esting in that It grew out Of a race
track episode, and in passing upon 1t
the court took occasion to make some
comments upon horse racing that will
interest friends and enemies of that
pastime. The title of the case was
Robert III. Morrison and W. II. Davis
VS.. 0. A. Bennett. Morrison and Ben
nett reside in Lewistown. and in 1895
they bargained with Davis to bring on
from Ohio a horse possessed of suf-
ficient speed to beat an animal by the
name of Distance, owned by Dan
Crowley. Lewistown horseman. They
represented to Davis that it would be
an easy matter to beat Crowley's Dis
tance and win considerable money.
Several letters were written to him,
some of which became a part of thu
records of the trial that resulted from
the dicker. One of the letters. written
in January, 1895. read as follows:
There is a man here that has
got some scrub horses that he thinks
are fast trotters and PAGERS. He is a
man that has got lots OF money, and
he and his friends will bet they money.
His PAGERS are range stock without any
mark; can go along somewhere from
2:4o to 2:30. He is stuck to back the
horses. as he is man without any
knowledge of horse racing. He has
been in the country for a long time:
has done business in the early days
with the half-breed Indians. He is a
safoonkaeper L want man to
come and bring two good horses with
him, one PAGER and one trotter that can
go along; rather have them with low
marks and we will match this man with
a dead mortal cinch. We can win sew
eral thousand dollars which is like find
ing 1t. The way | would want to bring
the harses into the country would be
70 sneak them into the town. put hair
brands on them so they would
appear as range stock. Would
want you to write to me and tell me
what you would bring il you would
come; IL is meat for some one. Let me
hear from you, so on. and keep this
secret
In course of time. bargain having
been struck. Davis appeared upon the
scene. bringing from Ohio a horse
named Lady Wallace. A match was
made with Crowley for purse Of
$1,000. The Ohio horse won. Bennett
received possession of the purse. and as
he declined 10 ''whack up" suit was In
stituted in the district court. Davis and
Morrison obtaining judgment Bennett
asked for new trial and the court be-
low granted 1t. The appeal to the SUI
preme court was from the order allow
ing new trial. Justice Hunt. who
wrote the opinion. which affirms the dis
trict court ruling. said in regard 10
horse racing:
we shall not decide that the racing
of horses. conducted in a proper and
fair manner. for purses offered by as
soclations, Is contrary TO law. Tt was
not Illegal at common law. Nor is there
"A statute of the state against such
practice. Nor do we believe that ii Is
against public policy where the purse Is
offered in good faith and not az a sub
terfuge for betting and gambling. Horse
races are looked upon as a species of
gambling largely because men bet on
the results. thus wagering upon uncer-
tain results, but that Is different mat
ter. There are many evils incidental to
many strifes for premiums. yet all conn.,
petitive contests are not unlawful"
After giving a technical definition OF
a purse or premium, the court con-
tinuas:
Bearing In mind this definition OF a
purse nr premium. IL is difficult TO see
why really 1t Is more immoral 10 hon.
estly try the relative speed of horses IN
a fair contest for prize than 1t is to
test the relative value of dogs at a
bench show where prizes are offered 70
the winners. or the beauty OF fowls at
poultry exhibition, or the merits of
cattle at a state fair for money pre-
miums. III such contests are honestly
conducted but little objection can be
well urged against them. or any Of
them while if there is cheating the ras-
cality renders them Objectionable and
immoral.
by the evidence here offered for
plaintiff he seeks TO enforce directly an
immoral contract and 10 secure the
fruits of such a contract. Ii cannot be
done. fBe8ch on Contracts. section 1881
Plaintiffs are entitled TO little symaa-
thy. They knowingly entered into the
contract and are only suffering the con-
sequences Of dishonest transaction in
which they united and which they
proved in presenting their case. The
fault Of the parties being mutual they
can only rely for shares of profits upon
these sentiments of honor which one Of
them wrote would exist when they en-
tered into their immoral combination.
Justice Pigott wrote his first dissent
ing opinion to-day. This was on an ap-
peal from Meagher county, Jacob Ole
son ". 6. IF. Wilson. involving the
question VI whether part payment Of =
note after its maturity by one joint
maker without the assent or knoul-
edge of his co-makers. binds them all.
80 far as the statutory period Of iIni-
tations is concerned. Justice Pember-
ton. who wrote the opinion. held that
the doctrine announced in Bank VS.
Bnllard, was decisive Of the case. In
that opinion the court held that the
payment binds only him who makes
II.
Union Mercantile company rs
Jacobs. Sultan ct al. an appeal from
this court was before the supreme
court on rehearing Judgment re-
versed on a question of practice: opin-
ion per euriam. Shannon ". Heut.
two cases appealing from the action ~
the district court Of Gaiiatin county in