The record-union., 1899-07-21
The SLOT MACHINE ON TOP.
SCORED "A VICTORY IN THE
BUCKMAN CASE.
The Accused Was Not Operating
the Machine-Its Mere Pos
session Not Illegal.

session Not illegal.
The slot machine men scored VIC
tory yesterday at the hands OF JUS
tees Court jury.
About three weeks ago the ponce,
acting under instructions from City At
torney DeLigne, entered the saloon con-
Quoted by Homer Buckman, on Il
street, between Sixth and Seventh, ana
that conducted by George Eagan at
seventh and K streets, and took from
each nickel-in-th -the-SlOt macnlne,
which to all appearances were IN gooo
working order and open for business.
With the machines as evidence,
Messrs. Buckman and Eagan were ar
rested and charged with violating the
State law which prohibits banking
games, the Supreme Court having
handed down an opinion that the
nickel in the-slot machine came under
that head.
Messrs. Eagan and Buckman re-
tanned Hiram W. Johnson as their at
torney, and when the case was called
ten days ago a continuance was grant
ed until yesterday, the jurymen sum-
moned were dismissed and another
venire ordered.
The case came on before City Justice
Anderson yesterday, and the entire
morning session was consumed in Sc
curing jury. 1t was agreed that the
case against Mr.. Buckman should be
first tried.
The jury which tried the case, and
which after being out about fifteen
minutes brought in verdict of not
guilty, was composed of the following
named citizens: S. J. jackson, Peter
Newman, H. P. Hanrahan, ]. lie Favor,
John Spencer, Fred Gehring, Herman
Meir, Henry Freund, Steve Hopkins,
M. Graf, c. F. Miller and John We'll.
Police Officer w. J. Hardy was the
first witness called for the prosecution.
He said on July 9th he visited Buck
mans place of business on K street,
between Sixth and Seventh, and took
possession of a nickel-in- the-slOt ma
chine which was in the place and
brought it to the police station.
At this point in the proceedings
recess of five minutes was taken to
allow Chief of Police Dwyer to mar
shal his officers and carry the machine
in question upstairs that it might be
offered in evidence.
After the machine had been pro-
duced Hardy identified it as the one
he had taken from Buckman's saloon.
Several men, he said, were present
when he took the machine.
The slot machine, Hardy said, was
not in the same condition as when he
brought it in. At that time there were
two nickels in sight, one in the green
and one in the yellow slot, while at
the present time there was only one
nickel in sight-in the yellow slot. He
said money had been extracted from
it since it was brought in.
On cross-examination, which was ex-
ceedingly brief, Hardy said he had
seen nobody play the machine. Buck
mans bartender, Meyers, was in
charge of the saloon, the former not
being present.
Officer Bagley corrobc~ated the testi-
mony of Hardy. On cross-examination
he said the machine was fast to the
floor. Attorney Johnson wanted to
know why he did not take the saloon,
and Bagley said it was too big. An
objection to the question and answer
was sustained.
George Myrick. bartender for Buck
man, said he had seen persons play the
machine in question on the three days
prior to it's seizure by the police. He
explained how the machine was
played. Witness said Buckman was
not present when the machine was
taken He did not know whether or
not the machine had been out of or
der during the three days prior to it's
seizure. So far as witness knew, the
machine was in the saloon for the ac-
commodation of persons who wished to
play. He thought he had seen per-
sons play who won money, and had
seen others put in their nickel who got
nothing back. The person playing the
machine got nothing for his nickel, so
far as witness knew, except the chance
to win money.
On cross-examination, the witness
said no customer was asked or induced
to buck" the machine; that it sat over
on one side of the saloon and any
person who desired might amuse him.
self with it. Buckman, the witness
said, was out of the city on the day
when the machine was seized.
The machine was offered in evidence
and accepted, the defense objecting on
the ground that it was not in the same
condition as it was when taken by the
police.
Fred Elliott, also bartender for Mr..
Buckman. said he was not positive
whether he had ever seen the machine
before, but said that on the 4th, 9th
and 9th of the month he had seen a
machine in Mr.. Buckman's saloon, and
thought he had seen it played. He
did not recollect whether or not any
body had won or lost money. Witness
said the machine in the saloon locke d
like the one in the court.
Justice Anderson in ruling upon an
objection as to the looks of the ma
chine. said he assumed it to be the
one which was in the saloon.
Attorney Johnson objected to any
assumption on the part of the court.
and interposed An exception to such
assumption.
The defense rested upon the evidence