view raw text
MAY PROVIDE DESIRED TEST IMPORTANT CASE SCHEDULED TO COME TO TRIAL IN NEW YORK COURTS. Constitutionality of Recently Passed Directors Liability Law Involved in Criminal Charge Against Owner of Brooklyn Property. New York, February 2S. A ease ponding in Ute criminal courts of Kings County is believed to have si direet bearing on the constitutionality of the so-called directors liability law which was enacted at Albany last year as part of the anti-race track legislation and was the actual cause of the closing of the racing .season of 1910 on September 1. Several weeks ago an alleged gambling house in Brooklyn was raided and several arrests were made. The owner of the property a few clays later was indicted liy the grand jury charged with violating the liability law in that he was the owner of the building in which alleged gambling had been carried on. even though the alleged gamblers conducted their affairs without his knowledge. When this case comes to trial some time next mouth it will probably excite unusual interest among racing men. They say it will be a test that will involve the constitutionality of the Agnew-lerkins measure which makes the owners and directors of Jockey Club race courses criminally liable if betting or lKokinakiug occurs there with or without their knowledge and consent. It was this law that went into effect last .September and compelled the men who controlled race tracks in the state of Xew York to close the gates rather than run the risk of arrest and prosecution. The race track men declared when this law was enacted. that it was both unfair and drastic, also that it would not stand a test in the courts, but naturally the racing directors and the stockholders were not willing to submit to criminal prosecution for the purpose of finding out their legal status. It was understood that the liability law would be tested by civil action brought against the majority stockholders of the Westchester Kaciug Association and the Coney Island Jockey Club by the minority stockholders to compel the majority to show why they had voted to close the tracks. It was thought that such procedure would result in a judicial opinion as to. ilie legality of the directors measure which might have a moral effect when considered by the - prosecuting authorities of different counties. Hut so far these civil suits have not materialized and it is said that the race track attorneys have praelieally decided to abiudon them for the present at least. The iew law which makes "hookmaking with or witjiout writing" a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment only will receive a thorough test later on. it is said. According to men who usually know what they arc talking about the term "hookmaking -without writing" will mean nothing. They say there is no law against betting and they insist there is a vast difference between betting and bookuiaking. These men, who have made a study of the anti-race track laws, declare that as the Court of Appeals decided in November, 1909. that betting was not a violation of the State Constitution it will be re-established that wagers on horse races are not illegal, hence; the directors liability law. they believe, will not be worth the paper on which it is printed. It is stoutly maintained that individual betting, which, according to many legal exports, is not bookmaking, will be permitted by the courts as soon as test cases involving the new "with or without" law have been argued. The Jockey Club stewards are not discussing their plans for publication, while the track owners are equally reticent, but it is generally believed that theres plenty of activity under the surface.
