The Supreme Court Rules Against Gambling Debts
A Spokane County case sets a new precedent: checks used for gambling losses are legally void, even if passed to third parties.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The supreme court has handed down an opinion in a Spokane county case holding that checks issued for money advanced for gambling purposes, where the payee wins the money, are void between the parties. Archie S. Ash, the appellant, bought checks from one Green, who was conducting a gambling game unlawfully. James Clark, now deceased, gave the checks—one for $1,000 and one for $500—to Green in return for chips and money to be used in gambling. Clark lost to Green. Ash brought suit to collect the money from Charlotte Clark, wife and executor of the estate. The court ruled that if one advances money on a note and wins it, the note is for money won; the same is true of a check. These checks were for money won by Green from Clark, and the fact that Green took the checks before the money was lost makes them no less obnoxious to the court.
“These checks were for money won by Green from Clark, and the fact that Green took the checks before the money was lost makes the checks no less obnoxious to the court.”
This 1903 ruling reflects the moral and legal crusade against gambling in early 20th-century Washington, a period when local courts were frequently called upon to untangle the messy debts of the underground economy. It serves as a reminder of the era's temperance and anti-vice movements that would eventually shape the state's restrictive liquor and gaming laws.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.