Conklin v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit on a check of the defendant payable to hearer and held by the plaintiff; brought to the court of common pleas for the county of Hartford, and tried to the jury upon the general issue with notice, before Briscoe, J. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtPark, J.
We think the verdict in this case is manifestly against the evidence, and shows that the jury were governed by wrong principles of law in their deliberations.
The first section of the act to prevent gaming (Gen. Statutes, 484,) provides that all contracts and securities whereof the whole or a part of the consideration shall be money or other valuable thing won, laid or betted at any horse-race <fcc., shall be utterly void.
It appears from the evidence that one Cummings, and one Cusick, made a contract to trot their respective horses for a purse of five hundred dollars, to be raised by each…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Drinkall v. Movius State BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
- Fisher v. BrehmSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1924
- Gordon v. ConleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1910
- Irwin v. MarquettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901