Shaffner v. Pinchback

• Decision Date: 12 June 1890
• Citation: 133 Ill. 410,24 N.E. 867
• Parties: SHAFFNER v. PINCHBACK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

133 Ill. 410

24 N.E. 867

SHAFFNER

v.PINCHBACK.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 12, 1890.

Error to appellate court, first district.

B. M. Shaffner, pro se.

BAKER, J.

This is an action brought by Shaffner against Pinchback to recover the sum of $1,000 alleged to have been loaned by the former to the latter. Upon the trial in the superior court of Cook county, verdict was rendered for the defendant, and judgment entered thereon. On appeal to the appellate court the judgment was affirmed, and the cause is brought to this court by writ of error.

The evidence introduced at the trial by plaintiff in error tended to prove that on August 16, 1886, he loaned to defendant in error the sum of $1,000, and that the latter was to pay to him for the use of said money one-half of the net winnings of a certain book-making business at horseraces to be conducted and managed by defendant in error. It also tended to prove that said business was a success, and won money at the Saratoga races. The evidence offered by the defendant in error tended to prove that the parties each contributed $1,000, to form a capital of $2,000, to be used in the business of ‘making books' on horse-races; that book-making consists of taking and paying wagers on such races; that the parties were partners in such venture, and that the $2,000, with the exception of $30, had been lost on wagers; and that he had retained the $15 that would otherwise be going to plaintiff on an indebtedness which was due and unpaid.

It is claimed that the two insturctions given at the instance of the defendant were erroneous. Those instructions were as follows: ‘(1) The court instructs the jury as a matter of law that, if they believe from the evidence that the plaintiff and the defendant in this suit put together the sum of one thousand dollars each for the purpose of betting and wagering the same on horse-races, then the jury will find the issues for the defendant. (2) The court instructs the jury as a matter of law that, if they believe from the evidence that the plaintiff and the defendant were copartners in the business of making books on horse-races, and that the money given the defendant by the plaintiff was in furtherance of said partnership business of book-making on horse-races, then the jury will find for the defendant.’

That betting money on a horse-race is gaming, and in violation of law, was decided in Tatman v. Strader, 23 Ill. 494; and that a contract in aid of the offense of gaming, which is prohibited by statute, is void, and cannot be recovered upon, was held in ...