The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-10-21

number OF nickcls put IT, pus WY to"
came out
city Sergeant II. Claiborne Epps vas
put on the stand as something or an
expert IN the working Of slot machines-
Mr. Epps gave "a short. but interesting
dissertation on the subject, TO the ediii-
cation of the jury. none Of whom had
ever INDUCED in the pleasing pastime OK
playing the machine"
what becomes OF the nickel that does
not come out2" asked Judge Wit
"It goes TO the house replied Mr.
Epps
After Mr. Epps was asked a variety
Of questions. 1t was agreed for the ma
chine TO 30 in as evidence.
There was long discussion on 'he
subject OF chances. and other Things
connected with the fascinating game bA-
der consideration.
ITS INNER WORKINGS.
AZ the request OF the jury superln-
tendont W. IT, II ompson then opeheu
the machine. and gave q practical oen-
onstrator Of its workings.
Many Of the spectators gathered around
10 get a look into the place where so
many Of their nlckcls have gone during
the past few months.
After explaining the machine Mr..
Thomson was asked this direct cues
tion by Mr. Richardson:
"Iz the question of whether n player
shall win determined by his skill or by
lot or chance
'I should say it was chance" was the
reply
All O'Clock the court took n recess
until 4.3O. and when it reconvened Mr.
Richardson announced that the Common
wealth rested its case.
SURE OF THEIR MONEY.
The defence then put Mr.. John Camp
ben on the stand. and he testified that
he had at one time owned a machine,
ana that when the same was out Of
order or had no money IN It, winners
were paid out Of the cash drawer. MT.
Charles Thalhimer testified to the same
effect.
me defendant, Frank Morrella. was
then put on the stand and testified that
he had paid for both State and city h-
censes for the privilege Of running hl5
machine. and that he conducted the
same openly in his barroom
Mr.. r. Francione was examined on the
subject generally, and created much
amusement by declaring that his ma
chine had often gone broke ana cost
him much money.
Mr. c. u. Eubank was then put upon
was familiar with both nickel-in-the-slol
machines and roulette tables, or wheels
of fortune, was asked TO describe lHe
latter. ,......,
10 this question, and Judge Witt sustain
cd his objection.
The same fate befeI a number Of
queries along the same line ana eAcep-
tions were noted.
Tbe Jury were then sent from the
rooro for q short time. while the insifuc-
tions submitted by each side were "I-
gucl ,,
pared their instructions az had a.so tn9
commonwealth Attorney, and lhe lat
ter won the victory the Instructions az
lowed 10y Judge Witt being pracucaiy
mandate to the jury to find against the
dofr,6ant. They were as follows:
THE COURTS INSTRUCTIONS.
Tho Court instructs the jury that
lottery Is any scheme whereby one on
,a,,in, money or other valuable thing 10
anotber. becomes entitled to receive from
him such return in value, or hoIhIls' "9
some formula Of chance may determine
ana If the jury shall dnd from the eVl-
dence bevond all reasonable doubt that
tho accused did, at the tine ana piace
mentioned I'm the warrant set up pro
mote or that he was concerned In the
management or drawing OF q lottery as
defined by this instruction, tney sHouiu
find him guilty 49,.
The Court further insiructs the jury
that. although it may appear rom l"e
evidence that the accused had a Incense
from the Commonwealth for a slot ma
chine such license was not intended TO
frfsr ia y.
the right 10 use such slot machine lor
the purpose of conducting and carrying
on a lottery, as defined by the hrsl lh-
sruction.
And If the jury find from the evidence,
bevond all reasonable doubt, that the
accused did at the time and place men
toned I'm the warrant use and employ
such Slot machine for the purpose Of
conducting and carrying on lottery
as defined bv the first instruction, they
should find him guilty.
THE DEFENCE SURRENDERS.
When these instructions had been read
Mr.. Meredith briefly addressed the jury
saving that under the rulings OF the
Court they had no option but 20 in1
against the prisoner. lie asked them,
however. I'm view o. the fact that IL was
a test case, simply TO sustain the YER
dict of the Police Court-which was a
fine of s. and one day In Jail.
Mr.. Richardson made the same re-
quest. saying that he recognized the fact
that it would be unjust 10 single out
Morella from hundreds Of others and
punish him severely.
The jury returned a verdict IN accord
ance with the instructions without leay-
ing their seats Consel for Morella then
made the usual motion 10 set aside the
verdict, which Judge Witt overruled.
Counsel for Morella excepted TO the
instructions 10 the jury. TO the eNclu-
sion OF the testimony OF Mr. Eubank
CONTINUED on Second Page)