Case Name: Mary A. Bare v. Lewis Kraft and Daniel Bauer, doing business as Kraft & Bauer
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1903
Citations: 1 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary A. Bare v. Lewis Kraft and Daniel Bauer, doing business as Kraft & Bauer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio nisi prius and general term reports (new series)
Volume: 1
Pages: 16–16

Head Matter:
RECOVERY OF MONEY LOST IN GAMBLING.
[Superior Court of Cincinnati — Special Term.]
Mary A. Bare v. Lewis Kraft and Daniel Bauer, doing business as Kraft & Bauer.
Allegations were made by a wife as to the place where her husband had lost money at gambling, and the amount he had lost within a specified period of three months, and that the place was run by the defendants. Held — that these allegations are sufficient to support a recovery of the amount lost, with penalty.
Thomas F. Shay, for the motion.
Thomas Bentham, contra.

Opinion:
Smith, J.
This is an action brought by the wife of Perry Bare to recover from the defendants $987, by reason of money lost by her husband in a gambling establishment run by them.
She alleges that the place is located on the east side of Váne street, between Fifth and Sixth streets, Cincinnati, and is called "The Colonnade"; that between the 15th day of August, 1902, and the 30th day of November, 1902, her husband lost the sum of $487 in various schemes of gambling conducted by the defendants; and she therefore asks judgment against them for the same with $500 by way of penalty as provided by law.
The defendant's have moved to require the plaintiff to separately state and number the different causes of action and to state when, where and how the aforesaid money was lost, staked or betted.
The motion must be overruled on the authority of Vincent v. Taylor, 60 O. S., 309.