The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1926-04-23

fee Of 81 for the horse Florence Fry
er" and received a receipt therefor.
That the fair association did net
have any interest in the outcome Of
the race.
That the horse FLORENCE Fryer"
was entered in the race but did not
win it.
That the fair association paid to
the reputed owners of the winning
horse the purse of S375, plus an
amount equal to the entrance fees
paid for that particular race.
Receipt Issued.
AS shown by the complaint the fair
association delivered to each entrant,
the so-called co-owner upon the pay
ment of his entrance fee a receipt
reading as follows:
''This is to certify that the Mon
tana State Fair has received from
the holder of this receipt the sum of
81; that the holder of this receipt
represents himself to be one of the
owners of said horse, to permit said
horse to compete for a purse offered
by the Montana State fair for the
horse winning said race. Said So is
hereby paid Internationally to the
said Montana State fair as such en-
trance fee and the same cannot be
withdrawn"
The supreme court in entering up-
on consideration Of this appeal took
/, the view that the only question pre-
sented it: Does the complaint de-
scribe such transaction as amounts
to a bet or wager upon the result of
horse race; or, in other words, a
gambling transaction?
1t then takes the view that the
purpose of the Montana statute is
not to prevent horse racing but to
prevent gambling; that it is not un-
lawful to conduct a horserace for a
purse, prize, premium, stake cl
sweepstakes" and that a race run fol
a purse or premium is not trans
formed into gambling transaction
merCely because every contestant i
required to pay an entrance fee; but
1t raises the question of whether the
race was converted into a gambling
3 transaction when the fair association
added to the purse offered by it az
3 amount equal to the sum of the en-
trance fees paid for the race.
s This latter question the court de-
2 cides In the negative.
Bona Eide Transaction.
''But," reads the opinion "these oh
!. servations and the authorities citet
!; have to do with bona fide transac
tons, and not with gambling So clev
!. eriy disguised as to appear to be VIVA
!. 1T is not. They are predicated upo1
:. the theory that the so-called entranc,
fee is an amount of money actual,
g paid Internationally and in goo,
r. faith for the privilege of entering tn,
). contest, and for no other purpose. 1
/. IN fact the fee is not paid for sucI
purpose, but is merely posted upol
Y the outcome of the contest, no amour
!. OF assembling can save the transac
: tlon from the condemnation of orr an
!. ti-gambling statute.
Z. 1t is alleged in the COMPLAINT cha
). on the 18th day of September 1905
!. the plaintiff, representing himself >
!: a co-Owner Of a certain horse enter
:, ed In said race, known as Florenc
IS Fryer, paid the sum of 50 to the eai
defendants as and for an entranc
}; lee pursuant to the notice given b
5. the association and referred to above
e, In our opinion this allegation is sub
Ject to only one construction. viz
that the fee of 50 was paid as a CON
It ditiOn precedent to the right of tn
r horse Florence Fryer to partieinat
IN the race, and that this was FL
understanding Of the parties is mad
e plain. The receipt delivered Ia IN
d plaintiff by the fair association 70
? cited that the said sum of 50 SO maid
IS an entrance fee paid by the bear