The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-04-13
KEOUCH GETS BIG WINNING
A new TRIAL. AT POKER GAME
Appellate Court Sustans His Mrs. OMgs First Husband
Contention In German Case. Gen. Hazen Had Good Luck.
LATTER SUED HIM FOR RENT TOWN LOTS WERE THE CHIPS
Claimed the Premises Having Been Used The Generals Jl Pot Melted Him Third
tM illegal Purposes He Was Not Liable Of te Town Wichita Kin
TRALscE REFusEOT CHARGE uspuE AS TO TITLE HAS ARISEN
Appellate Court Holds s Justice Erred Also Mrs. pu Wsm Sell he Properly Ms
Defendants Claim SstoH for Hsas Kings Queens ws sm
Mony Pad For Liquors 6macfs Jack Full
Claimed the Premises Having Been Used
foT illegal Purposes He Was Not Liable.
TRIAL JUSTICE REFUSED TO so CHARGE
Appellate Court Holds the Jusllos Erred and Also
SustaIns The Defendants Claim In Ssi-off for
Monsy Pad For Liquors.

>The appellate court handed down an
opinion in the case of Michael German
VS.. Patrick Keough, today. sub
mftted to the court some time ago. on
defendants petition for a. new trfai.
The plaintiff sued for rent and the de-
fendant set up that the premises were
hired for the dllegal sale or liquors, not
only with the knowledge OF the PLAIN
tff but with the further agreement
that the defendant was to buy all his
Iquor OF the plaintfn, who was TO pro-
tect him in his selling and fur
nish bail for him II he should be ar
rested. The defendant also pleaded In
set-off an account for money paid to
the plaintiff for liquors bought of him
through several years. for illegal sale.
The jury found for the plaintiff. and the
case was before the appellate court
on exceptions To rulings and the ex-
pulsion OF the plea in set-off.
The defendant requested the judge TO
charge the jury that IL Mr.. German
knew that Mr. Keough was selling
liquor there and that Mr.. German fur
nished him with liquor. knowing he
was to sell this liquor illegally. that
under these circumstances he cannot
recover. The request was refused.
Judge Stiness. who writes the opinion
OF the court, says General Laws. chap.
102 sect. Is explicit upon this point.
license shall sell liquor to an unli-
censed dealer, having reason TO be-
lieve that the same are TO be resold;
and section 61 provides that no action
shall be maintained for liquors sold In
violation OF the law. The defendant
was therefore entitled to the charges
requested
The defendant also filed plea in set
off claiming the right to recover under
sec. so, all sums which he had paid TO
the plaintiff for liquor illegally sold.
The section provides that all such pay
ments shall be held TO have been re-
ceived without consideration and
against equity and good conscience. The
plea OF set-off was ruled out in the COM
mon pleas division OF the court. Two
questions arose from this ruling
whether the plea is admissible under
the statute; and whether II is objec-
tionable on the ground that the defend
ant is pari delicto.
The plaintiff claimed that under Gen.
Laws cap. 239 sec. 10 and IL set-off
can only be allowed in actions on ac-
count stated quantum meruit quantum
valebat. or for goods sold or work done
at an agreed price. The appellate court
holds there is no such limitations as
the plaintiff contends and in regard to
the claim that the defendant could not
recover being pari delicto Judge Sti-
ness says:
THE claim in set-on was not barred
by illegahty; IL related to a sum liqui-
dated or capable OF calculation. as IL
was on specific sums paid; il was set up
in an action founded on demand
which could itself be set-off. the action
being for use and occupation, under
stipuiNed rent: and consequently. 1t
was asproper claim in set-off and
should have been allowed. Petition for
new trial granted and case remitted."
Mr.. German claimed something over
$500 due for rent and got verdict for
the greater part OF his debt Mr..
Keough's set-off amounted 70 $4,000.