view raw text
SCOPE OF LATEST NEW YORK DECISION. The decision of the appellate division of the New-York Supr mo Court is interesting and evinces intelligent investigation of the t.ue meaning ..r the tilings prohibited and of what constitutes bookmak ing in fact and in law. something thai was lacking in tlie recent decision of the Supreme Court of I isi ana along the same lines. It clearly establishes as New York law that bookinakimr is an exact thing ami ••. something kindred in its general purpose ol making a bet. a thing that is not itself unlawful in i ■ York. The opinion will bear careful reading and is as follows: "Any person who engages in bookinaking is gui.:v of a misdemeanor Penal Code Section :; ;1 . The Information and warrant against the relator accuse him of the crime of •engaging in bookmaking. The int inatioii lias to state facts which constitute liook-inaking. It does not do so. ll states that the relator did on a race track -itnote and lay odds to li. any persons, specifying the said odds, that is to ■ay did state and publish to said peraoaa the terms in which he was willing to bet with tlie said per auas again-l borsea on tlie result of tile races ti.tn ••ml there to lie run by sack bacaea. and did let fciOO to *J« wit D a person named that a certain horse would lose. There is no allegation of the writing or the recording of any sums and the learned ci nnsel for the people admits there was no writing or recording, and argues that liookiiiakitig means i.nlv the making up by one of a plan or wtom railed ., book of odds to tie followed by iiim in brttine with all comers and which, although it may be written or recorded does not need tohe. but may be made up anil carried ill tile head ami communicated ..r published by him orally. "This is not so. There can lie no bookmakine without writing or recording. Tin- word in bettina. and a used in the penal code, implies the use of a hook or sheets of paper, or a luilkliii board, or some Fitch thing. This is the genus of tlie word. It is n. I msessarv to enter upon a precise delinition. BO icta "i uiiting being alleged. This order should he aniri I " . , , . ,. The appeal was from an order granted by Justice Maddos in a special term of the Supreme Courl ustalning a writ of habeas corpus. The relator, or defendant, was arrested under a warrant of the Court of Siiecial Sessions of tie Citv of New oik. ill. il by He district attorney of Kings County, under Section 7IJ of the rode of criminal procedure. IsslKtaM District Attorney atobert 11. I.lder repre seated th.- people and Joseph A ac roach appeared for the defendant. The opinion was Klven in the *ase ot the people of the state of New York ox-rel. Orlando Jones vs. Joseph l.angan. a lieutenant of police, aptieliaul. and two other similar eaaea of Jones vs. l.angan and l.ichtensieiu vs. l.angan were decided on the same opinion.
