The Daily Cincinnati Republican, And Commercial Register

Newark Daily Adv.

From the Maysville (Ky.) Eagle.

GAMING.

It is generally known that during the session of the Kentucky legislature of 1832-3, a severe law was enacted against the odious and demoralizing vice of gambling. The law is generally known as "Wickliffe's law," having been introduced into the legislature, by Robert Wickliffe, Esq. of Lexington, then a member from Fayette county.

At the present term of the Fayette Circuit Court, Judge Hickey presiding, the laws against gaming were particularly adverted to, in the charge of the grand jury, and the duty of inquiring into all cases of private as well as public gambling, was strictly enjoined.

In pursuing the enquiries which they deemed necessary, in order to effect the object contemplated by the legislature, the grand jury had various persons summoned before them, in order to give testimony; among them, Charlton Hunt, Esq. Mayor of Lexington, A. K. Woodley, Esq. and G. L. Postlethwaite, one of the proprietors of the Phœnix Hotel. These men refusing to answer the interrogatories propounded to them, were fined in the sum of $30 each, and ordered to jail for contempt of court.

In the interim between the summons of Messrs. Hunt and Postlethwaite before the grand jury, and the imposition of the fine and imprisonment, the grand jury had been dismissed for a week. On re-assembling, the charge of the judge in relation to gambling, was so modified as to make it discretionary instead of obligatory on the grand jury to prosecute the inquiries enjoined in the original charge.

Under the impression from the altered tone, or what they conceived to be the altered tone of the Judge, that witnesses would not be compelled to give testimony in cases of private as well as professional gaming, the grand jury unanimously resolved that they could not effectually pursue their inquiries regarding violations of the law against unlawful gaming, and requested to be discharged.

The Judge explained—and the witnesses having been brought before the grand jury, and refusing to answer, were fined, &c. as above stated.

The grand jury subsequently presented another communication to the court, imputing delinquency on the part of the court, in the discharge of its duties. The Judge alleged this to be contempt, and seven of the grand jurors, refusing to purge themselves on oath of an intentional censure of the court, were fined in the sum of $40 each, and imprisoned 24 hours for contempt.