view raw text
FAVORABLE VIEW OF CALIFORNIA LAW. Police Judge Dismisses Cases, of Men Charged -with Making Bets at San Francisco. San Francisco. Cal.. August 11. The cases of Albert Houston and John J. Newlands. charged with violating the Walker-Otis nntl-betting law, were dismissed by Police Judge Dcasy on motion of As- sistant Attorney Bloch, The men had been arrested at the local baseball grounds while making a bet on the result of a game. Rloch in making his motion said there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charge in the complaint. The two defendants made a bet on the result of the game between themselves and the loser paid over the money to the winner. There was no stakeholder and. in his opinion, a bet between two men where there is no stakeholder did not come -within the provisions of the act. The judge in dismissing the case said: "I agree with the assistant district attorney that there must lie a stakeholder to bring the case within the provisions of the act. It seems to me that a mere bet between two individuals on the result of a game where one passes the money over to the other. Is not a violation of the net. As I understand it there is no allegation in this case that the money was held by n- stakeholder." Judge Shortall has held for trial Charles Schwartz, who bet ." to 1 with John Liebold on the result of a game Lfebold won. Schwartz paying him . Lie-liold having wagered . In this case there was no stakeholder. Schwartz paying the money direct to Lleltold, who was also arrested, but the case against him was dismissed, as he gave testimony for the prosecution. . Edward Fitzgerald, convicted last "March before Police Judge leasy of laying a wager in violation of a city ordinance, was able to laugh at the law yesterday when it was discovered that the Walker-Otis law had put his case beyond the pale of punishment. Fitzgerald was sentenced to pay a $.10 line or spend twenty-five days In jail for having bet 00 cents that First Peep would win a certain race, besides playing a fifty-cent combination on Knight Deck and Remember for place. Pending his appeal the state law went into effect. Judge Con-lev, lefore whom the case. ..was argued this, week, reversed the decision of the lower court, saying tlsat it had been decided by the Appellate Court that the passage of a statute repealing, in effect, previous laws or ordinances upon the subject, operated to free all parties who stood convicted of offenses under the superseded laws if the time for apieal had not expired.
