view raw text
LAW AND THE RACE TRACKS. New York. November 19. The demurrer taken by William Engcman. Christopher Fitzgerald and John G. Cavanagli. ollicials of the Brighton Beacli Racing Association, to the terms of the indictments found against them last summer was argued before the justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in Brooklyn and decision was reserved. Incidentally Judge Dike of the County Court was criti-sized by Justices Woodward and Jenks because lie had shown a disposition to pass the: matter up to the Appellate Division without siftiurr the right and wrong of it. Justice Woodward stopped Assistant District Attorney Filler, who argued against the demurrer, having bad charge of all matters pertaining to the enforcement In Kings County of the Hart-Agnew law. and asked if tiie case should be heard in that, court. He said the County Court should have treated the matter more thoroughly before allowing such, an important case to go up on appeal. Mr. Filler was sure that the matter was very important and needed immediate decision, and was just as sure that Judge Dike bad not intended to shirk his duty in passing up the case, and did so only with the intention of expediting matters. Ex-Corpora t ion Counsel William O. Do Witt, appearing with Joseph S. Auerbach for the defendants, concurred with Mr. Elder in so far as he had gone and was just as eager to have the matter decided. Justice Jenks then said that he had the highest opinion of Judge Dike as a man and as a judge, but that ho. ought not to have shirked the original opinion. He quoted Judge Dikes brief answer to the demurrer: "Im not going to decide this matter: 1 will give no opinion: let the Appellate Division decide." Mr. De Witt thought that Judge Dike had precedent on his side and that his refusal to pass upon the new points simply indicated modesty. "Suppose I was modest." said Justice Jenks, "and sent up my cases to the Court of Appeals. We have a right to see the opinion of the judge in this matter." Finally it was decided to hear argument as to the sense of the terms used in the indictment, which charges the defendants in part with Iteing tiie owners, agents and superintendents of the device and apparatus commonly railed "advance information." and that they owned, procured and permitted that device and apparatus to be used by many persons for and in lookmakiiig. and for and in the calculating and laying and quoting of odds on horses. Mr. Elder said that the words "device and apparatus" used in the statutes applies to anything owned and used to advance gambling. Justice Jenks asked if a newspaper was a device and apparatus for gambling and Mr. Elder replied that it was if owned and used to advance it. In answer to a question about the bringing of indictments lie said that one could be brought against any one, and if in the proper form would not be demurrable even though the charges contained were false. He said that even a religious paiier could be indicted and that the owning or using of advance information or of a poker chip is indictable. Mr. Auerbach said that the happenings since the passage of the Hart-Agnew bill have been little short of scandalous, that the polieo have treated the decisions of the courts with flippancy, that men have been arrested for mere betting, that men had been turned from the race tracks because they were known to lie gamblers at one time, that the police 1 have established a reign of terror and that men were 1 being indicted on the shallowest pretenses. Betting at common law, he said, is enforceable as a contract. 1 and the Hart-Agnew law does not make advance information a gambling device. He said that the defendants might as well have been Indicted for 1 handing out newspapers that publish such iuforuia-: lion.
