Case Name: Louis F. Hobing v. The Enquirer Company
Court: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1904-05
Citations: 2 Ohio Nisi Prius (n.s.) 205
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louis F. Hobing v. The Enquirer Company.
Judges: Littleford, J.
Reporter: Ohio nisi prius and general term reports (new series)
Volume: 2
Pages: 205–208

Head Matter:
ELECTION GUESSING CONTESTS ARE WAGERS.
[Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County.]
Louis F. Hobing v. The Enquirer Company.
Decided, May, 1904.
•Wagers — Election Guessing Contests in Violation of Section 4269 Against Wagers.
An alleged profit staring contest, gotten up by a newspaper, wherein $10,000 is offered as a prize to the person who can estimate the exact vote which will be cast for the secretary of state at the election November 1, 1902, for the privilege of making which estimate the person pays fifty cents, is only a wager between the newspaper and the other party, and is in violation of Section 4269, Revised Statutes.' A petition alleging that the plaintiff paid his fifty cents to the newspaper under such an arrangement, and made the correct estimate and is therefore entitled to the prize of $10,-000, is demurrable, because the transaction was a bet. The plaintiff is not even entitled to recover back his fifty cents in this suit, because the common pleas court has no jurisdiction in suits for that amount, although under Section 4270 the loser may recover money lost on account of a wager.
Littleford, J.
The petition in this ease reads as follows:
“The defendant is a corporation duly organized and doing business under the laws of the state of Ohio.
“During the month of September, 1902, the defendant was engaged in conducting a profit sharing contest, and at different times offered various prizes to be awarded to the person or persons who should make the nearest estimate or who should estimate exactly the vote which would be cast for Secretary of State of Ohio at the election to be held on the 4th day of November, 1902.
“While said contest was in progress, and prior to the 16th day of September, 1902, to-wit, on the 10th day of September, 1902, the defendant offered a special prize of $10,000 to any one who should, after becoming a subscriber to the daily Enquirer, between the 7th day of September, 1902, and the 1st day of November, 1902, upon the payment of fifty cents to defendant for the privilege of each estimate, estimate the exact vote which would be cast for Secretary of State of the State of Ohio at the afore said election to be held on the 4th day of November, 1902; and said offer was made through the medium of the advertising columns of the Cincinnati Enquirer, a daily newspaper owned and conducted by the defendant.
“In pursuance of the aforesaid offer of the defendant, and intending to bring himself within the terms thereof, on the 16th day of September, 1902, the plaintiff became a subscriber to the daily Enquirer, taking out his subscription in the name of “Henry Hobing,” and on the 25th day of September, 1902, while plaintiff remained such subscriber, and in pursuance of the offer of defendant as above set forth, and intending to take advantage thereof, and in conformity with all the rules of the aforesaid contest, the plaintiff estimated, in the ¿foresaid name of “Henry Hobing,” the exact vote which was subsequently cast for Secretary of State of the State of Ohio at the election held on the 4th day of November, 1902.
‘ ‘ The defendant has never paid nor offered to pay to plaintiff the amount of said prize of $10,000 offered as aforesaid, nor any part thereof, but has refused so to do, although plaintiff, on the 27th day of March, 1903, and on several other occasions prior thereto, has demanded of defendant the payment of said special prize of $10,000.
“Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against defendant in the sum of $10,000, together with interest from the 4th day of November, 1902, and for his costs expended therein.”

Opinion:
In the case of Stevens v. Enquirer, 13 O. D., 235, decided November 7, 1902, by the Superior Court of Cincinnati, it was held that this very arrangement did not violate any statute of Ohio. In that case the plaintiff sued for his fifty cents back, and also prayed that a receiver be appointed to take possession of the fund then in possession of the defendant. In a long and well considered opinion, Judge Eufus B. Smith, sitting in special term, held that the action was not within the jurisdiction of the superior court, because the suit was for only fifty cents, and that for this reason, as well as for some others, a demurrer to the petition ought to be sustained; but so far as the "guessing contest" itself was concerned, the learned court held that such a transaction was not within the condemnation of the statutes of Ohio against lotteries, gambling, wagering or betting.
This case was taken to general term, and there the decision of the learned judge sitting in special term was affirmed; but two of the three members of the bench sitting in general term affirmed the decision solely because the amount sued for was not within, the jurisdiction of the superior court, and both expressed the opinion that the transaction was illegal. No opinion was handed down by the general term, but Judge Dempsey, one member of the bench, expressed the opinion that the so-called guessing contest was a scheme of chance; while the writer of this opinion, who, as a common pleas judge, was sitting as one of the bench in general term, expressed the opinion that the transaction was a bet.
The opinion expressed then that the transaction was a bet is still the opinion of this court. It will not be worth while now to write an extended opinion, because that case is now pending-in the Supreme Court of Ohio; but it seems to this court that in this transaction the plaintiff bet fifty cents that he could do a thing, and the defendant bet ten thousand dollars that he could not — the defendant to be the stakeholder. The demurrer in this case has been submitted without argument and without authorities, and the court will not undertake to cite any cases, but the court has a list of authorities which were cited in the case before the general term of the superior court by counsel engaged in that case. The able counsel for the defendant in this case was also counsel for the defendant in that ease; and while he now thinks this petition demurrable, there were a number of cases cited by him in the other trial which gave reasons for holding that various transactions which appear on their face to be wagers were not in fact wagers. For instance, it was held in 81 N. Y., 532, 549, and some other cases cited then, that if the money paid in by the plaintiff and others goes into the general treasury of the corporation pending the outcome of the event which is to decide the ownership of the money, instead of being put into a separate place by itself, then the transaction is not a wager; and there were some other distinctions equally as fine made by counsel in that case as distinguishing between wagers and what were called legitimate transactions which seem to be very like wagers. But this court has never been able to see that any weight ought to be attached to such distinctions; and furthermore, it is the opinion of this court that in cases like we have here, it is not the province of a court of justice to search for subtle reasons for holding that the transaction is a legal one.
Norwood J. Utter, for plaintiff.
Alex. Murry, Jr., for defendant.
The demurrer will be sustained, on the ground that this transaction is a wager between the plaintiff and defendant, and is in violation of Section 4269, Revised Statutes. The plaintiff is- not even entitled to recover back his fifty cents, because the common pleas court has no jurisdiction in suits for that amount, although, under Section 4370, a loser may recover money lost on account of a wager.