SCIENCE V. CHANCE.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 965, 26 April 1872, Page 3

SCIENCE V. CHANCE.

Is the game of Euchre a jjatne of science or one of mere chance 1 This would have been a ticklish question to have been put by the defendant in the casein the Pendent Magistrate Couit here on Wednesday last, when the Besident Magistrate iuflicted the penalty of £lO for allowing the g,iine to be played for drinks in a publichouse. Will anyone connocted with the Bench or the Bar define what gauns are "games of chance" as designated by the Act, ami which are games of science ? This is a question which has before noA r cropped jug before a West Coast Bench. At (rreyinouth recently the "science" plea, in respect to a novel class of bagatelle or roulette table, divided the opinions of the presiding justices, and was only decided afcer several il.titrations in the open court, in which the scientific player showed how his play was superior to that of his opponent who trusted entirely to luck. A good story has been told of a Kentucky barrister who once had a case of this kind, which, when perused, may benefit the judgments of those who are unable to distinguish a right from a left "Bower." At that time, in Kentucky, the law was very strict against what is termed "games of chance." About a dozen of the boys were detected playing "seven-up" or " old sledge" for money, and the grand jury found a true bill against them. Jim Sturgis was retained to defend them when the case came up, of course. The more be studied over the matter and looked into the evidence the plainer it was that he must lose a case at last —theie was no getting around that painful fact. Those boys had certainly been betting money on a game of chance. Even public sympathy was roused in behalf of Sturgis. People said it was a pity to see him mar his successful career with a big- prominent case like this, which must go against him. But after several restless nights an inspired idea flashed upon Sturgis, and he sprang out of bed delighted. He thought he saw his way through. The next day he whispered around a little among his clients and a lew friends, and then when the case came up in court he acknowledged the seven-up Sv,, the bettiiiir, and, as his sole defence, had the astounding effrontery to put in the plea that old sledge was not a game of chauce! There was the broadest sort of a smile over the faces of that sophisticated audience. The judge smiled with the rest. But Sturyia maintained a countenance whose earnestness was even severe. The opposite counsel tried to ridicule him out of his position, and did not succeed. The judge je>ted in a ponderous judicial way about the thing,, but did not move 'him. The matter was becoming grave. The judge lost a little of his patience, and said the joke had gone far enough. Jim Sturgis said he knew of no joke in the matter —his clients could not be punished for indulging in what some people chose to consider a game of chance until it was proven that it was a game of chauce. Judge and counsel said that would be an easy matter, and forthwith called Deacons Job, Peters, "urae, ana Johnson, ana jjoniimes Wirt and Miggles, to testify; and they unanimously and with strong feeling put down the legal quibble of Sturgis by pronouncing that old sledge K 't a game of chance. " What do you call it now ?" said the judge. "Icall it a game of science}-" retorted Sturgis 5 " and I'll prove it, too!" They saw his little game. He brought in a cloud of witnesses, produced an overwhelming mass «f testimony, to show that old sledge was not a game of chance, but a game °J science. Instead of being the simplest case in the world, it had somehow turned out to be an excessively knotty one. The judge scratched his head over it a while, and said there *as no way of coming to a determination, because just as many men could be brought into court who would testify on one side as could be found jo testify on the other. But he said be was willing to do tho fair thing by "I parties, and would act: upon any j{!gge>tion Mr Sturgis would make tor ol the difficulty. J lr Sturgis was on hi? feet in a Hcoud.

"Impanel a jury of six of each, Luck versus Science : give them candles and a couple of decks of cards, send them into the jury room, and just abide by the result! " There was no disputing the fairness of the proposition. The four deacons and the two dominies were sworn in as the "chance" jurymen, and six inveterate old seven-up professors were chosen to represent the "science" side of the issue. They retired to the jury room. In about two hours Deacon Peters sent into court to borrow three dollars from a friend [sensation]. In about two hours more Dominie Higgles into court to borrow a "stake" from a friend [sensation]. During the next three or four hours the other dominie and the other deacons sent into court for small loans. And still the packed audience waited, for it was a prodigious occasion in Bull's Corners, and one in which every father of a family was interested. The rest of the story can be told briefly. About daylight the jury came in, and Deacon Job, the foreman, read the following VEBDICT. We, the jury, in the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. John Wheeler et al., have carefully considered the points of the ease, and tested the merits of the several theories advanced, and do hereby unanimously decide that the game commonly known as old sledge or seven-up is eminently a game of science, and not of chance. In demonstration whereof it is hereby stated, iterated, reiterated, set forth, and made manifest that during the entire night the " chance" men never won a game or turned a jack, although both feats were common and frequent to the opposition; and furthermore, in support of this our verdict, we call attention to the significant fact that the " chance" men are all busted, and the "science" men have got the money. It is the deliberate opiuion of tMs jury that the " chance" theory concerning seven-up is a pernicious doctrine, and calculated to inflict untold suffering and pecuniary loss upon any community that takes stock in it. That is the way that seven-up came to be set apart and particularised in the statute-books of Kentucky as being a game not of chance but ot science, and therefore not punishable under the law. That verdict is on record, and holds good tothis day.