A Philippine Decision. have been no progressive euchre games or poker parties in Manila. But it is thought that such pastimes were indulged in occasion ally between January 1 and December 9, 1 90 1 . Let us suppose, however (purely as an illustration), that to-day, at a meeting of a Euchre Club, two Manila ladies, each having a score of eight, should cut for the prize fan, and the higher- of the two should in good faith take the fan from the piano (while the hostess was temporarily absent from the room, ordering ice-cream and cake) and carry the same to her home. Immediately after her departure it should be discovered that a third lady, whose score had been erroneously counted as seven, had actually won eight games. Could a Court of Justice be called upon to restore this fan to the Club because the cutting had been irregular? Again, let us assume (purely as an illustra tion) that in a poker game the Major should exhibit four sevens and, exultingly confident, gather in the reds, whites and blues (by the way, we now know why poker is called our "national game "), and while receiving the congratulations of the Colonel and the Lieu tenant, the Captain should, for the first time, discover that his three eight spots ab solutely destroyed his chance of winning, be cause, forsooth, there were only fifty-one cards in the deck, the missing card being the eight of clubs. Would a Court of Justice entertain a suit for the restoration to the Captain of such sum as he had invested? I am unable to answer this question in the affirmative. Adopting the views of the dis tinguished Chief Justice of North Carolina
275
(115 N. C. 448), I believe public policy is best subserved by leaving both parties where their illegal conduct has placed them. In cases of this class, where both parties have violated the law, but are free from fraud, the true doctrine, as it seems "to me, is that neither of them may be successful as a plain tiff. They will thus be taught that Courts of Justice will not aid them to carry into ef fect their unlawful games. It was suggested that in case the decision in this case were to be in favor of the plaintiff, the latter would carry into effect another raffle which he had already planned; and that this case should be decided in favor of the defendant in order to prevent another violation of the law. I do not, however, base my decision for the de fendant upon that ground, nor do I decide that the title or possession of the defendant is valid. I merely hold that the plaintiff is estopped to claim this property. . . . I think it my duty to call the attention of the Prosecuting Attorney of the City of Ma nila to the testimony in this case, which conclusively proves a violation by many dis tinguished American gentlemen of a plain, well-drafted city ordinance, but the noncha lance and frankness with which all the wit nesses (except the plaintiff, whose attitude was that of a man who had been pushed into Court by his friends) admitted their guilt, was as refreshing to the ears of the Court as was the invigorating breeze from Manila Bay to the lungs of the Court during a stroll on the Luneta at the close of the trial. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff to pay the costs.
