Hide Article Text (OCR)
the jury was selected to try the case, when he secured J. C. K. Lindhout to defend him. The court adjourned to give Mr. Lindhout a day in which to study the facts, and opened up bright and early Friday morning. “Bad Eye” Was obliging “Bad Eye” took the stand as the first witness, and told how he had loaned Mr. Ravel $150 in front of 1641 East End avenue, early in the evening of November 21, 1921. There had been a card game in progress, but it broke up, and as Pollard was leaving Sol indicated his need of ready cash, and “Bad Eye” obliged. Pollard also told of a visit he and Ravel and Gene Oliver paid to Ike Bloom’s “Midnite” frolic in Chicago, at which time he gave Sol $176 to keep for him, and Sol gave the money back. Arthur Schroeder corroborated the testimony of “Bad Eye” regarding the payment of money to Sol at 1641 East End avenue, about a year ago, but was unable to fix accurately the date. He saw Pollard hand the $150 in money and checks to Sol, and said Sol destroyed the checks and offered to give Pollard a new check, but Pol lard said he could pay back the money in a few days. The money passed at the building owned by Ruvel, and the game, the witness thought, was run by Dominick Roberts and Jim Lawrence. He said that Pollard, Ravel, Ralph Hansen and Jim Lawrence, and maybe Pollard’s brother were present at the time, and all could have seen the transaction. Witness admitted that he had played poker, but denied that he thought Sol a was easy in fact, he was considered tough. Also Regarded Solas Tough Ralph Hansen said he was a sales man for the Economy Scale Co, and that he witnessed the transaction tes tified to by Pollard and Schroeder; that Pollard gave Ravel $150, and the lat ter said, “that makes $300 ; there was a check, but it was torn up, and Pollard said, “Let it go; give it to me tomorrow.” Witness also admit ted that he had been playing cards, and that he couldn't tell what time the money transaction occurred, be cause some time they played a day or a day and a half; they didn't watch the clock, and had so much light they couldn't tell whether it was night or day. When the money was passed between Pollard and Sol, the game had broken up, but some fellows came in and started a new game Ralph said they didn’t regard Sol as easy, but on the centrary regarded him as tough Saw Sol Pay This concluded the testimony for the plaintiff, and the defense opened up by putting Bert Morrow, painter, on the stand Mr Morrow testified that he saw Mr. Ravel pay money to Pollard in the Kasdorf hiding last summer, at Seventeenth street and East End avenue, but he didn’t know how much. in cross-examination he denied that he had told Pollard that Sol owed everybody in town, and that he was a crook and a weilder; he said he could not tell whether Ravel owned him anything without consult ing his books; he admitted that he did Ravel’s work, likewise that he had gambled with Sol many times. He named a number of persons who were present when Sol paid Pollard, and said the payment was made in a poker game. Mr. Morrow also ad mitted that he had been a “house worker’ at Sheehan's. Pp. F. Picket, a herculean Negro, said he walked into Sol’s place about three months ago, and saw Pollard come in. ‘He and Sol talked about money, and Sol gave Pollard some money, but witness did not know how much. Pol lard picked up a brick and walked out. Cassie Brown, another Negro witness, was called, but was not pres ent. Soll Tells of Unwise “Calls” Mr. Ravel then took the stand, and denied getting $150 from Pollard on the street, but said he did get $150 at 1639 East End avenue. At the time they were playing “stud” poker, and Sol was ‘playing open.” A play came up, and Pollard bet $75; Sol called, and lost, and said “That’s $75 I owe you. After a while another play came up, and Pollard bet $75, and again Sol called and lost. The next night he got $150 from Pollard at the same place. He had lost all the money he had with him and was going to quit, when Pollard told him he needn't to quit, and gave him $150. He declared, [properers that he had paid all this money back, and said Pollard’s busi ness at the time was operating a gam bling house on Otto boulevard. Gave Pollard His Money On cross examination witness ad mitted that he had been playing poker, craps and the ponies for about twenty years. He denied any connection with John Torie’s handbook, but said he took bets on the horses to satisfy his friends. He also gambled in stocks and bonds, and real estate. He in sisted he had paid Polard all he owed him, and said Lawrence, Mar row and “Vic” Nelson were present when he paid money to Pollard. He ‘denied that he had ever torn up a check, and explained the visit to Ike Bloom’s by saying that he, Oliver and Pollard “went cabaretting” and all were drinking. Pollard said he had a lot of money and wanted Sol to keep it for him. Sol agreed, and Pol lard gave him $2060. Afterwards he asked for $20 to buy drinks with, and the money was given him. About 4 o'clock in the morning they decided to start, home, and called a yellow ieab. The trip home cost $8. About a week afterwards Pollard called Sol jup, and said he had some money, but he didn’t know what became of it Sol said he had it, and paid over $176 —all that was left of the $200—to Pollard. On re-direct examination Pollard denied Ravel’s statements regarding payments, and said the money paid him at the time alluded to by Picket, was $1.61 due on a race bet. Sol denied this Lament Gambling Prevails The arguments were brief. Mr Hood opened by telling the jury that they probably thought he should apol ogize for having them listen to the the story of a gambler’s quarrel, and allowing them to learn that gambling flourished within sight of the city hall, but he declined to apologize, and plunged into the merits of his case. He insisted that his client had loaned the money to Sol in good faith, and that he had no knowledge that Sol would use it in a poker game. He claimed that the burden was on Sol to prove he had paid the money; that he had not proved payment by any body but Morrow, and hept into Ravel, calling him a weldher, and said Pollard was a “square gambler,” and should have a verdict for $420. Mr. Lindhout likewise lamented that gambling should exist, but claimed that his client had paid any obliga tion that he owed to Pollard. He also insisted that if Mr. Ravel had been the welder and crook portrayed by Mr. Hood, he would never have given back the $176 which Pollard admitted having received from him. The court instructed the jury as tol d the law in the case, and it retired for about fifteen minutes, after which it returned with a verdict for the plain tiff, fixing his damages at $300, with interest at 5 per cent.
Newspaper Details
Chicago Heights Star
Chicago, Illinois, US
Thu, Dec 21, 1922
Page 10
Full Page
Clipped by
Anastasia A.
USA 18 Feb 2026
Other Publications Near Chicago, Illinois
News Journal
Suburbanite Economist
Southend Reporter
Community Publications
Southtown Economist
