The times., 1898-12-02

In the case of the United States against
the officers of the Washington Jockey
| Club, which was resumed before Judge
Kimball In the Police Court yesterday,
| the Government rested and the defense
proceeded with argument on a motion
to dismiss. On this motion, Mr.. Maddox.
counsel in chief for the defense. made an
earnest and skillful plea that the case
be taken from the jury. His address was
Impressive because of It's apparent sin
certify, candor and directness.
Following Mr.. Maddox came Mr.. Auer-
bach, of the New York bar. He dealt
largely with the history of anti-gaming
legislation, adroitly defining differences
between booknaking pool selling and
other methods of betting on the results
of horse races. He had not concluded
his argument when the court adjourned
1t will resume this morning. Mr.. Auer-
bach will be followed by A s. Worthing-
ton. who has given close and critical at
tention to the trial. 1s
When the case was called yesterday,
Mr. Baker, for the prosecution, an
nounced that the first witness for the
Government would be Robert Pinkerton
The crier called this name without avan.
Mr. Auerbach handed to Mr.. Baker
certificate from DIR. T. Thomas Murray
to the effect that Mr. Pinkerton was i'll
and to attend the trial would be at the
risk of his life. MIR. Baker stated that
Mr.. Pinkerton had been in attendance at
the trial yesterday and on each day since
the defendants were arraigned. Counsel
for defense said that this was evidence
that Mr. Pinkerton was not seeking to
avoid the case. Mr. Baker replied that
Mr.. Pinkerton had not been summoned rs
a witness till yesterday afternoon. Still,
there was no disposition. he said, on the
part of the prosecution to traverse the
certificate of DR.. Murray -
me Government then sought several
other witnesses, and the names Richard
son. Porter, Stephenson. and Kelly were
cried out without response.
The first witness was ]. r. Fauth, of
Washington. He had been playing the
races for several years He had attended
the meeting at Benning. and, to the best
of his knowledge, there We're twe.ve or
fifteen men engaged in making books on
the races. They did not use the black
board or other paraphernaiia familiar to
old-tme race men. bgt-they- made nern-
oranda of their bets on small hand states.
Some had the prices of the horses marked
on their programs.
for the purpose of identifying an official
program of the race meet issued by the
Jockey Club. and which contained the
names of the executive committee. among
which appeared the names of three OF
the defendants. This was for the pur-
pose of getting the program In evidence.
Mr.. Jones said he had not seen a copy
of this particular style Of program at the
Benning track. 49,
,astr
concerning rules OF evidence resulted
from an effort on the part OF the Gov
ernment to impair the testimony given
yesterday by Bernard Gold. a Govern
ment witness. This man had been in
the employ of Mr.. Jones at one time.
Mr.. Jones was asked why he discharged
Gold. For fraud" answered the WITT
ness. Jones said that several years ago
he kept poolroom in E Street, In the
Harris House. After he discharged Gold.
the latter was employed by one Wall, who
also kept poolroom-
Richard Lacy. a watchman. at St.
Asaph. Va. testified that he had attended
the meeting at Bennins and had made
several bets.
Detective Parham was the next witness
He described his visits to Benning and
the manner of making bets.
When the court convened after recess,
Mr.. Baker announced that the Govern
ment rested its case. Mr.. Worthington
said the counsel for defense would sub
nit motion to dismiss fnasmuch as the
prosecution had failed to make out a
case.
Mr. Maddox opened the argument by
reading the various laws enacted for the
District of Columbia against gambling.
He first paid attention to the act of 1888
and next recited that of 1855. which, he
said. was aimed at the poolrooms which
had sprung up in the city, and where bets
were made on races outside of the city.
These poolrooms were moved to points
beyond the boundary. This brought out
the statute of 1891, which prohibited bet
ting on horse races within one mile of the
limits of the city AS Benning is more
than one mile from the city limits, he
held that the statute did not prohibit bet
ting there. He asked how the defendants
could stop betting at Benning, when the
law did not prohibit it. If a gaming table
were set up at Benning in violation of the
law 1t was the duty of the district attor-
neys office TO stop the bettin". and not
the duty of the defendants. These layers
of bets took all the bets that ", re o cred.
Many other persons made bets. People
bet on the lawn and in the grand stand.
Mr. Rowland and his co-defendants could
not eject a man, from the grounds for
making a bet.
He maintained that a horse race is not a
gaming device. II is a trial of speed, en-
durance and skill in training. 1t Is not
set up for the purpose of gaming He
declared that three of the defendants
were simply stewards, whose control was
limited to the races proper, and not to
the conduct of the grounds. The stew
ards did not have possession or control of
that part of the grounds in which the bet
ting Is alleged to have taken place
He held that the executive committee
comprised fifteen men, and the fnforma-s
tion named but three, and that If the ex-
ecutive committee did govern the track
the three defendants could not, and did
not, have control of the premises. Messrs.
Howland, Brown and Ross were present
at the track not as members of the ex-
pointed by the New York Jockey Club, to
supervise racing at Benning.
Mr.. Auerbach began his argument by
suggesting that II the Courts mind were
not already made up assto the case, he
would like to speak at considerable
length regarding the merits of the case
and the law bearing on It..
Judge Kimball remarked that there was |
no need of suggestions of this nature. He
had a sworn duty to perform, and he
would perform it.
Mr. Auerbach explained that, as he had |
been engaged in several cases of q SIM |
liar character in New York, he might |
claim to possess some special informa-
ton. He spoke of betting as viewed by |
the common law. Bets and wagers were |
contracts that might be sued on. As time |
wore on and as evil appeared to the |
minds of certain law-making assemblies |
to creep in, statutes were enacted for the |
suppression of places devoted to betting