The times., 1898-12-03
TRIAL OF THE RACE MEN
The Jockey Club Case Goes to
the Jury.
NO AGREEMENT IN SIGHT
The Jurors Are Locked Up for the
NiEht-ChnrEcs Against Defend
ants Cassidy, Mccoy and Earreto
Are Dismissed - Argument and
Prayers of counseI-Judse KIM
balls Charge.

The case of the United States against
the officers, of the Washington jockey
Club was given to the jury last night. AMI
the jurors, having failed to agree at il
O'Clock and there being no prospect of an
early agreement, were locked up for the
night.
The day was consumed in argument
on the motion TO dismiss. made by ceun-
sci for defense, and in tire presentation
of prayers. Attorneys Wortnington and
Auerbach argued that the motion should
prevail and Prosecutors Baker and Null
Iowney that it should be denied.
Judge Kimball ruled that the motion
of the defendants, Cassidy. the starter;
Barreto. the timer; and Mccoy, the
patrol judge. The court ruled that the
motion should be disallowed as to thee
of the defendants, Rowland, Brown. AMI
Ross, stewards of the races and m mbers
OF the executive committee of the WASH
ington Jockey Club.
The reason for this rule was that the
prosecution had not shown that Cassidy,
Barreto, and Mccoy had anything to do
with the control of the Benning track,
other than as employees of the Washing
ton Jockey Club, the information set
ting forth that the defendants permitted
gambling on premises under their con-
troll.
The presentation of prayers was then
proceeded with. The prayers of the de-
fendant follows:
First-The jury is instructed that
since it is admitted in this case that the
race track referred to in the evidence is
not within one mile of the boundaries of
the cities of Washington or Georgetown;
neither betting or gambling on that race
track, merely as such, is forbidden by
law.
Second-The jury is instructed that
CARRYING on the business of horse racing
for prizes or premiums, as indicated by
the testimony in behalf of the Govern
ment in this case, is not illegal and is not
embraced within the charge contained IN
This Information against the defendants.
Third-The jury is instructed that be-
fore il can convict the defendants, or
any of them, ii must be satisfied by the
evidence beyond reasonable doubt that
there was carried on at Benning race
formation in this case, gaming table,
game device or contriYance at which
money was bet or wagered, and that IL is
not enough for the Government 10 show
merely that there was such betting or
wagering.
Fourth-The jury is instructed that even
If il should be satisfied from the evi-
dence that there was al Bennng AT the
time in question a gaming table. game.
rs.h. Fs#ag
bet or wagered, it cannot convict tine
defendants or any of them unless it is
further also satisfied from the evidence
beyond a a reasonable doubt. that such
gaming table game, device or contriv-
ance was set up or used for the purpose
of gaming in some house, building, vessel.
shed. booth, shelter. LOT, ur other premises
to the defendants or some of them belong
ing, or by them. or some of them occu-
pied. or of which they or some of them
had at the time laid in the information
the possession or the control.
Fifth-Unless the jury believes from the
evidence that the races run under the
management of Defendants Rowland
Brown and Ross. as stewards, on the BEN
ming race track during the period of time
laid in the information filed in this cause
were gaming table, game. bank or con-
trivance set up or used for the purpose of
gaming, its verdict must be for the de-
PENDANTS.
Sixth-The jury is further instructed
Mat it cannot convict any of the de-
tndants in this case unless as to such
defendant or defendants it is salts
Sed by the evidence beyond reasonable
ioubt that the premises known as the
Benning race track belonged to or were
occupied by such defendant or defend
,Nnts, We're in his possession or con-
lol during the period of time covered
ly the information filed in this cause
Seventh-The jury is instructed that in
trder to convict any defendant in this
Use, il must be satisfied beyond q
reasonable doubt by the evidence that
such defendant not only knew that the
WV was being violated-if the jury finds
Vat 1t was being violated-by the use of
gaming table, game device, or contriv-
aice as described in the previous instrac-
tons given TO the jury by the court, and
fhd not take any steps to prevent the
lime but that either impliedly and ex-