The Slough
A new entry in The Encyclopedia of Scams.
Name
The Slough
Aka
The Shiv (with knives), The Lock
Crew
One or more
The Scam
The mark is presented with an ordinary looking lock. The swindler shows him how the look is easily opened and closed with a key.
The mark is then persuaded to bet on whether or not he thinks he can open the lock himself. Being a proud individual, he takes the bet…and can not open the lock.
There are various ways for the swindler to gaff the lock. The simplest way is to create a gravity lock, one in which all of the springs have been removed. Turned face down, the pins of the lock all fall into place and only the correct key will open the lock. Down face up and pins all fall away so that any key will open the lock.
David Maurer, in The Big Con, briefly describes the Slough being played as a con game with three keys or three locks and the mark having to match the key to the lock.
Variations
In The Shiv, a locking knife is used. Only the con man knows how to unlock the knife or knives.
Case Study
The Texas criminal reports: cases argued and adjudged in the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas
JAMES MCFARLAND V. THE STATE.
No. 2642. Decided June 24, 1903.
1. —Swindling.
Defendant and a confederate had two locks, one of which could be opened and the other could not. They induced the prosecutor to bet that he could open the one shown him, which was the one that could be unlocked. After the bet was made they, without the knowledge of prosecutor, exchanged the locks, and he failed to open the one handed him, which could not be unlocked. Held, a clear case of swindling.
2. —Flight After Arrest.
On a trial for swindling it was competent to prove that defendant, after his arrest, jumped out of a window and fled. The evidence was not inadmissible because defendant was in arrest and unwarned.
3. —Evidence—Fruits of Crime.
Where a party in arrest is found in possession of the fruits of his crime, it is a physical fact, and admissible in evidence against him and those who acted with him in the crime; and the question of warning is not in such a case, it not being a confession or admission.
Appeal from the District Court of Tarrant. Tried below before Hon. M. E. Smith.
Appeal from a conviction of swindling; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The amount obtained by defendant and his confederate, by means of the swindle, was $175.
The opinion sufficiently states the case.
No briefs for either party found with the record.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
DAVIDSON, PRESIDING JUDGE.—The indictment charges appellant with swindling by means of a trick lock; and it is shown that he and Barnett acted together in swindling Murphy. The evidence discloses the swindling occurred in Fort Worth on Saturday morning, about 8 or 8:30 o’clock; that the parties by their devices, representations and acts induced the injured party to bet with one of the two conspirators that fee could open one of the locks. It seems they had two, one of which could be opened and the other not. After inducing him to make the bet, the locks were changed without his knowledge, and, of course, he failed to open the lock. This shows a clear case of swindling, so far as the State’s evidence is concerned. In a day or two after the alleged offense, the parties were arrested. While en route from the place of arrest to the city hall, Murphy testified that he followed the officer and defendant and Barnett; that they entered the city hall before his arrival; that they had not seen him until he entered the city hall; when he entered, they were sitting on a bench in the police office, and as he entered the door, both looked at witness, and one of them said “Jesus Christ,” and both of them immediately ran and jumped out of the window and fled. Witness chased Barnett and caught him, and an officer chased and caught defendant. This evidence was objected to because appellant was under arrest and not warned as required by law. The court qualified this bill by stating that on objection he excluded the expression used by one of the defendants, and in the charge instructed the jury to disregard that expression. It would seem from this that the testimony in regard to jumping out of the window and flight from the city hall was left before the jury. In this there was no error. Buchanan’s case, 41 Texas, Crim. Rep., 127; Waits’ case, 13 Texas Crim. App., 169.
Witness Murphy was further permitted to testify: “After Officer Newby arrested defendant and Barnett, I followed along behind the three on the way to the city hall; I saw Barnett put his hand in his pocket and raise the flap of his coat pocket as if he was fingering with the flap of his pocket; after we arrived at the city hall, I saw the officers search Barnett, and saw them find in the flap of the pocket, between the linings of the flap of the coat pocket, a pair of locks, the same locks as those used by them on the morning of October 4, 1902, the time they got my money; there was a small hole in the lining of the flap of his coat pocket; the officers got the locks out of the of locks, the same locks as those used by them on the morning of October 4, 1902, the time they got my money; there was a small hole in the lining of the flap of his coat pocket; the officers got the locks out of the hole.” Objection was urged because appellant was under arrest at the time these matters occurred and was not warned; and on the further ground that defendant was not responsible for any of these acts; that if a conspiracy had previously existed between them to swindle Murphy these acts were long subsequent to the consummation of such conspiracy.
Take
As a short con, only a few dollars can be taken.
Great site. A lot of useful information here. I’m sending it to some friends!