view raw text
, JUSTICE STAFFORDS DECISION. The outcome of the case at Washington against bookmaker Davis, was entirely unexpected. The defendant and his lawyers relied upon the decision of former Justice Bradley In the Klein case, but Justice Stafford surprised all hands by a decision that, left the jury no -option but to bring in a verdict of guilty. That it did so unwillingly was shown by its remaining out an hour and twenty minutes. Justice Bradley, one of his ablest predecessors on the same bench, in the Klein case in 1S99, which was identical with that of Davis, had instructed the jury to bring in a verdict of acquittal. On the strength of, the latter decision this book-making lias been conducted in recent years outside of the mile limit at Bennings. The case is one of such iuterest to all concerned in racing that Justice Staffords ruling to the jury is here presented: "It seems that a case was brought in 1S95 with an indictment exactly like that. It was demurred to; it went to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals held that the indictment was good; that if the facts therein alleged were established the offense would be proved. "The court took notice of what bookmakihg is. In the opinion it shows that it understood bookinak-Ing to be what It has been described to be in this case. The court, in the opinion delivered in that case, said that setting up and carrying on book making in that way was setting up a gambling table." Attention was called to the fact that another act, which is now incorporated in Section SCO of the Code, prohibited bookmaklng in terms, and the court said that, notwithstanding that, the defendant would be liable for setting up a gaming table if he set up and carried on bookmaklng in the way described in the opinion and eharged in the indictment. "The court undertook to distinguish between the mere making of books and the setting up or keeping of the bookmaklng arrangement. Now, unless there is some substantial differences between the facts presented by the evidence in this case and the facts in the mind of the court at the time it rendered that decision, I am absolutely bound to follow that decision. Is there any such difference? "I can see nothing from my study of the opinion to indicate that there is any difference. The court had in mind that a bookmaker was one who offered to make a bet and record it, so identifying the bet and the bettor that after the contest was over the winner could claim his winnings, and that this should be done in a place sufficiently fixed and permanent so that it could be fairly said that the contrivance, the scheme or the game had been set up there. Now it seems to. me it makes no difference whether it was set up in a booth or in some other place. "The evidence pretends to show that this defendant belonged to an association of layers of odds who divided between themselves the space which layers of odds are allowed- to occupy, that each one had a certain place relative to the others, and each one had his number. "It does not appear, and there im no evidence tending to show that these layers of odds had any right between themselves and the owners of the property to be in any particular place, but they did in fact remain there. The evidence .tends to show each one substantially in his own place on any particular day. Of course that was essential, because the bettor must know where to go when the contest is over in order to claim his winnings if he lias won. "That fact was recognized. So that the evidence tends to show that there was a certain place at which thq defendant was carying on the business. He had his card or slate, which served as a means of publishing, to all the odds at which he was willing- to take bets. He had the sheet on which the record of the bet would be made, and he followed a I Continued on second page. JUSTICE STAFFORDS DECISION. Continued from first page. system which sufficiently identified the bettor so as to enable him to return and claim his winnings, if he happened to win. "Is not that the whole substance of the case which the Court of Appeals had before it? It seems to me there is nothing lacking. "Under that decision I understand that one who sets upthe business of bookmaklhg in substantially that way at a definite "place, and carries It on with the public generally, Is setting up and keeping a gaming table within the meaning of the decision, and the evidence tends to show that the defendant did that in this case. "A word as to the Klein case. The "evidence may not have gone so far as. it has in this case, but the District Attorney at that trial seems to have taken the position that if the bookmaker had no right to remain In the place lie was occupying, no legal right as between him and .the owner of the land or th6 building. It could not be claimed that he was sufficiently located. "That is not the position taken by the. government in this case, and it seems to me that It is not necessary that the layer of odds should have any such right as that in order to be in fact identified with some particular, place sufficiently to have it said that he is setting up his contrivance and keeping it. "One case which was quoted in the Miller case is the case of Bows against Felnwiek, ah English case. There the defendant w.as prosecuted for keeping a place for gaming". It was In the open grounds, aud the way he kept the place was to fix in the ground a pole or stake, at the top of which was an unir brella. "He did his business under that. He could remove the umbrella to any other place. He had no right whatever to occupy that place. He was liable to be moved ou by tho police, as the court says at the close of the opinion, but the court held that niadc no difference. The fact that he paid iio rent and was liable to. be moved by the police did not prevent his keeping the place for the purpose of gaming, if in fact he did keep it. "Now, tho fact tliat these layers have no right as between themselves and the owiers of the ground to remain In any particular locality, it seiris to me, hriSj nothing to do with the question if in fact they did keep themselves in certain places, so that they were at those respective places setting up ami carrying on ths business."
