Bisbee daily review., 1907-02-06
GAMBLING LAW FAILS IF ITS
 PURPOSE
Phoenix SoIons In Drafting
 City Gambling Ordinance So
 Qualify Measure As To Make
 It imperative, k

According to the opinion of one of the most prominent lawyers in Phoe- nix the snti-gambling ordinance that became effective in Phoenix February | l, does not prohibit the playing of euchre, whist, 500 and other games so popular in society for prizes. The anti-gambling ordinance con templated the prohibition of these games, but it's wording is such that the end is not accomplished according to the opinion of Attorney Walter Ben nett.
 The ordinance in question was pass ed shortly after the election in which gambling was voted out.
 Mayor Coggins recently asked Wal ter Bennett for his opinion of the law and he gave it in writing. He believes the ordinance is legal, that the city may prohibit gambling and states that section one prohibits the playing of any game on a wager or bet. but that the offering of prizes for such games as are played merely for prizes in his opinion, after quoting the section of the ordinance referring to this Ques- ton, Bennett says:
 "It will be noted that this entire section comprises but one sentence without stop or pause except commas, and therefore all qualifying phrases in the latter part of the sentence must be referred to and regarded as quail lying all foregoing statements and pro hibitions. So far, therefore, as the question you ask Is concerned, this section, stripped of all redundant mat 1 ter, would rSad as follows: That no person shall-play-cr conduct-any game played with cards dice or any instrument or device with a view to win any prize-that Is
 waged upon the issue of a contest
 within the city of Phoenix Tt will be at once seen that the only thing that is prohibited, by this section is the playing for wager or bet, whether such wager or bet be in the form of money or a prize or any other thing of value.
 "The controlling words of this sec. tfon are those constituting the qualify ing phrase that Is waged upon the issue of a contest unless the thing played for IS WAGED Chat is 'bet') upon the issue of a contest, the ordin- ance is not violated. To constitute 2 wager or bet no form of words and no express contract or agreement Is necessary, but certain essential ele- ments must exist There must be two or more parties. each of whom must stand to win and lose something upon the happening of an event. This mu- tual risk of something of value con stitutes the essence of the wager or bet.
 Tn the play or contest for prize, he who offers the prize is the only party who parts with anything of value | and he has DO chance to win anything Those who contest for it have a chance tS win, but none to lose. The essen. l tial clements of a wager or bet are | lacking"
 In support of his opinion Bennett cites decisions of the supreme court of Indiana and California. In con. clusion he says:
 T am clearly of the opinion that the offering of, or the playing rcontest' ing for prize. or premium contributed or offered to the winner of contest game or series of games, and to which prize or premium the players of con testants do not contribute, Is not within the prohibitions of the ordin aace referred to-"