The Alaska citizen. (Fairbanks, Alaska) 1910-1917, 1914-04-20

+ ell is one dollar but. IN accordance
with the finger-tip custom. it was not
t paid: the real consideration was the
| 81 500 so miraculously won by the
/ defendant the previous night by
/ shaking the box. Plaintiff soon aft
| er brought this suit to set aside the
conveyance upon the ground of
| fraud % because he was so drunk
at the time he signed the deed as
| to be unable TO comprehend the ma
| ture of the contract. and 90 for
want of consideration.
1t is currently believed that the
| Lord cares for and protects idiots
and drunken men. court of equity
| is supposed to have equal and con-
current jurisdiction. and this case
seems to be brought under both
branches Before touching upon the
law of the case, however, it is prop
er to decide the questions of fact
upon which these principles must
rest. and they will be considered in
the order in which counsel for
plaintiff has presented them.
Was Mckinley so drunk when he
signed the deed in controversy that
he was not in his right mind. or cap
able of transactng any business.
or entering into any contract? He
was engaged, under the aegis OF
the law and the seal Of this court.
in selling whisky to the miners of
the Tanana for four bits a drink, and
medicine and playing dice with Gus
toners for a consideration. Who
shall guide the court in determining
how drunk he was at 8 O'Clock in
the morning. when the transaction
opened? Upper or the defendant?
How much credence must t'e court
give to the testimony Of "unk-
en- man who testifieS other
was also drunk? Is the jound
by the adm ssion of the IF that
he was so paralyzed by his own
whisky that he cannot remember the
events of nearly "a hours in which
he seems to have generally followed
his usual calling? Upon what fact
in this evidence can the court plant
the scales of justice that they may
not stagger7
PROBABLY the most satisfactory de-
termination of the matter may be
made by coming at once to that
point of time where the deed in ques-
ton was prepared, signed, and &C
know lodged Did the plaintiff exhi-
bit intelligence at that time? He
refused to acknowledge a deed which
conveyed half interest, and caused
his creditor to procure one to be
made by the officer which conveyed
only a quarter interest; he pro-
tected his property to that extent.
Upon presentation of the deed
prepared by the officer, he refused
to sign it until the words land 9TH
err valuable consideration" were
str ken out; thus leaving the deed
to rest on a stated consideration of
"one dollar" Upon procuring the
paper to read as he desired he sign
ed it in a public office, before sew
eral persons, and acknowledged it
to be his act and deed.
Defendant says that the deed was
given to pay a gambling debt lost
by the plaintiff at his own game,
and his counsel argues that for
this reason equity will not examine
INTO the consideration and grant
relief, but will leave both parties to
the rules of their game, and not in
termingle these with the rules of
law He argues that they stand in
pari delicto, and that, being engaged
in violation of the law, equity
ought not to assist the proprietor OF
the game TO recover his phIh loil.
It may be incidentally mentioned here,
as it has been suggested to the
court, that the phrase pari delicto
does not mean a "delectable pair"
and it's use it not intended to reuect
upon or characterize plaintiff and
defendant.
There are cases where courts Will
assist in the recovery Of money or
property lost at gambling, but this
is not one of them. The plaintiff
was the proprietor Of the saloon
and the operator Of the { me IN
which he lost his he
now asks court of e. assist
him in recovering it, a t. is raises
the question, may gambler who
runs game and loses the bank
roll come into a court Of equity and
recover it? He conducted the game
in violation of law. conveyed his
premises to pay the winners score,
and now demands that the court as
sist him to regain it. Equity will
not become gamblers insurance