Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-01-09

mad an eRort to set In. Os1en0ent,
Mr.. 0chtrenck. then arrived upon the
scene. A quarrel arose between them
with reference TO breaking the lock.
which evsntuated in an assault by each
upon the other. and in which each re-
ceived serious personal injuries. After
they were separated, It seems that Mrs.
Mccormick went to her husband and
told him Of what had occurred There
upon he went to Schtrenck and made
an assault upon him. seriously in
juring him. which fact formed the
basis OF the latter's plea in re-
convention in suit brought against
him by the former and his wife.
The court held that to admit such
plea would establish the rule, in effect,
that trespass might be justified by
a previous libel. if the jury should think
the injuries inflicted about equal: or IL
would permit one who was slandered 10
obtain his redress by an assault. IN
stead Of a suit, provided that he could
establish that he imposed no greater
injury than had been done to him. The
court said that such procedure would
be contrary to public policy, that the
common law to!erates no rule when
would permit such retaliation OF IN
juries. and therefore denied the plea.
BEDROOM PUBLIC PLACE.
May a private bedroom constitute a
..public place" within a gaming statute
prohibiting gambling at public place!
This is the novel question presented TO
the supreme court OF Alabama IN
very dramatic case entitled Thrashef
VS.. State. found in SO Southern Report
er. o56. The place is defendants bed
room; the time is Saturday night;
the game is Craps: the stake is mon
ey: the limit a quarter; fourteen jolly
good fellows the actors; and the
ira gical clinaX-the arrest of DEFEND
ant on a charge of gaming. The gam
ing was proved, even confessed. by de-
PENDANT, except as to the pubic
place" In regard to this necessary
constituent OF the o.fense. defendant
claimed that all of the proof showed
that the game was played at private
place. The evidence showed that great
number Of men had been frequenting
the room. and that they went and came
al pleasure, irrespective OF any invita-
ton by defendant or by that of any
one else processing to have authority
The court held that bedroom is prima
facie a private place. but since the evil
dence here showed that It was used for
other than private purposes. resort
where crowds OF people gathered with
out invitation and indiscriminately, IL
constituted such a public place as is
contemplated by the statute.
"RAKE-OFF-' IS ILLEGAL.
An ingenious device to evade the
liquor laws OF West Virginia s set
forth in the case Of State VS.. Collins,
So Southeastern Reporter, 26S. De-
PENDANT occupied an underground room
in which he conducted the interesting
and fatal game Of stud poker Per-
sons would come to his den. buy polk
chips from him. and gamble sometimes
for many hours during the night Beer
was furnished by the generous host to
those engaged in the play. without any
cost to the players, except the price
which they paid for the chips at the be-
ginning OF the game. These chips were
valued at ). 10 and 25 cents each, and
at the end OF each game Collins (de-
fendant) would take a portion Of the
chips as rake-off. The chips renlain-
ing in the hands OF the winners at the
end OF the game would be "cashed in"
or redeemed. Defendant contended that
the "rake-on" was not for the price OF
the beer furnished, but was intended
as compensation for maintaining the
place Of Amusement The West vir-
ginia supreme court Of appeals held
that, since Collins did not redeem the
so-called "rake-on' this was in consid-
GRAFTON Of the beer furnished, and that
the device was 4 mere trick or subter-
fuge, adopted for the purpose OF selling
beer in violation OF law.
ABUSIVE CCTOR-DAMAGES.
The case OF Georgia S. & F. Ry.
Co. VS. Ransom, So Southeastern Re-
porter Recorder, s43, is an action for
damages for an alleged tort OF a con-
auctor Of a railroad in addressing
lady passenger in certain language
which she alleges was unnecessary.
cruel, willful. and caused her great
modification, mental pain, and humili-
ation.' Plaintiff was travelling on de-
PENDANTS train, accompanied by two
small children, when the conductor ap-
preached her and asked for her ticket.
which she could not find. He said that
she might look for it, and he would
come back again. This she did. but
the lost had not yet been found. They
were nearing her destination: the con-
ductor wanted the tickets or her fare.
The first was impossible: the latter she
declined to give. He thereupon en-
deavored to reconcile his duty as an Of