Tombstone epitaph., 1919-04-20
FRIENDLY CONTROVERSY
OVER GAMBLING LAW

A friendly controversy IN order 10
decide what application shall be made |
to the recent anti-gambling &C; pass
ed by the legislature and approved
by the people on a referendum vote,
has arisen between Superior Judge
A. C. Lockwood and County Attorney
r. n. French. of Tombstone. The
matter. which brought the issue 10
a head is the result of number OF
gambling cases which have been
brought to trial by the county a.;or-
ney under the new act
Case Brings Up Point at Issue
Tuesday a case against J. j. Ora
ham. Of Bisbee. was tried before the
sought 10 proye wherein the defend
ant had participated in game simi-
lar TO poker. ba; the evidence sub
mitted before the jury brough: out
the fact that game OF draw pitch
was what the defendant had played,
and there Was no evidence 10 show
what the lues of the game were or
that the game was similar 10 poker
After the evidence had been submit
ted. the court oasing his action on
his Interpretation of the gambling act.
instructed the jury to hiring in : yer
dict OF acquittal To this the county
attorney takes issue. and the matter
stands as follows:
The Courts Opinion
Judge Lockwood claims tha; the
legislature in framing the law. sought
to enact a gambling act that wolld
expressly prohibit certain forms Of
gambling only. and proceeded 10 name
the notorious gambling games or de-
vices. to be prohibited. Upholdiny 9
his contenticrs the court says: BY
the enactment OF the law the legisla-
ture has not prohibited gambling OF
all kinds. but has carefully, speeif-
cally and deliberately avoided the en-
actment of real anti gambling Law.
and has prohibited certain special
forms Of gambling only. Personally,
believe all forms of gambling ara
bound by the laws as they are and
not as they should be II the legisla-
ture had wanted TO pass an anti
gambling law they would have fram-
ed a measure such as the Duffy law.
which was passed by the legislature
in 1909. This was a real aati-gambl-
ing law. But the then legislature did
Bot realize il until after it was passed.
and seeing what they had done they
promptly repealed ii. and passed an
olAS' 90" sShcAniiiS sluiI@dT 10 luc
present act. although not quite SO
broad in scope. since the participant
was not then made liable" In brief.
Judge Lockwood holds that since the
legislature has enumerated. and list.
ed certain special games and devices
which shall not be played. and plainly
stated that these games, or similar
games or devices which is taken to
mean. for instance. a game OF poker
or panguingne under another name
merely to evade the law. shall con
stitute AZ offense, il follows that o,he:
games which are not notoriously
gambling games or devices mentioned
in the law or similar thereto. DO moi
constitute violation of that CLAUSE
OF the statute"
County Attorneys Interpretation
On the other hand. County Attorne,
French, upholding his contention tc
the court, claims that the legislature
in framing the act intended that no
only all games and devices listed IN
the various clauses OF the measure
were intended to constitute a viola
tion. but that every form OF gambling
gaming or betting. no matter wha
the device or the manner. should con
stitute an infraction of the law. Un
der this construction. betting on a bal
game, says the county attorney woult
constitute an offense, while playin,
for prize at a whist party would alss
be in violation Of the gambling act
Mr.. French claims that the intent o.
the legislature was to expressly pro
hibit all forms Of gambling, and in
doing this proceeded to specify al
known forms OF gambling, then te
forestall any evasion Of the law. in
+,