view raw text
TEXT OF NEW YORK DECISION. Construction Placed on Hart-Agnow Law Arouses Speculation A3 to Its Effect on Betting. New Tori .Imiiaiv 25.— The dcei-h.n Of the Court of Vppeala and opinion ol Chief Justice Cullen al rectinc tbe recording and registering of bets on horse races handed down this week ha* caused much -iHe,iiaii..i! as to the effect it will have apou future burse race betting In this state. The decision was made In the case of the people Mains! Mlcba 1 Lambrix and settles the question - :. bet !-wee„ two persons does not eonaUtutea viobitloti of the Ilait Agnen anti-gambling law. Ih.-Court ol Ipneals reversed the Judgment ot the lowei •onus and di-.haieed Michael l.aml.rix. WbO WU convicted in the Erie C itj court and sentenced to - rve 1 t-rm of afx nths In the penitentiary. He v ..- charged with I akii R ■ bel m Ith Geo Ureeu d te r.v. up * tbe result ol a rao i„ WDlcl a borsi named Aroudack was running al .-.., 1 -. iiville, I la. The name- n the bors. - were • . ,i from b Buffalo newsi iper. M a - no alleged thai Lambrix was acting as a bookmaker or was the ..»!ier of a ihh.Iim.ih or gambling apparatus. Tue decision by tbe Court of Appeals determines : it tbe pi .». in. of such a wager la nol 1 ,,;• the law, and decides one phase of the Han Ague* •uitl-betting measure. . «1 j- also h.id thai Laabrii did not violate tbe iTttiutf law h "receiving and regtetering ■ bet." ThW i» one ot the asoat uaiportajil teataraa of the ruling. . , The dechaaaa, which was written by Chief „ Justice I alien. 1-: ■•The People ea Michael Lambrix Appeal from ■ jruteiriont of the Appallate Division. Fourth Depart inetrt. uuanlmoualy aflhrauing a Judgmenl entered niiii a conviction of the defendanl for tbe recording ami reglatering of beta and waaora, 1 he dcfcuiluiit u«h in. lit ted 111 March. lyU». for the violation of the provisions of Section 0SC of the Penal Law which deals with poomeiBng, book ma king, irgistering and recording of in-ts and wagers, and -; 11 1 i l:i r matters. The indictment contains six counts. ! Brsl charged the defendant with keeping and occupying a room with hook.-, papers, apparatus .. al paraphernalia for the purpose of recording and registering Lets and wagers and selling pools; the third with keeping, exhibiting and employing devieca and apparatus for tbe purpose of recording and register Ing beta end wagen and seUing pools: the sixth with being the occupant and lessee of a certain room and therein keeping and exhibiting devices and apparatus for the same purpose. "At the close of the prosecution these counts were dismissed. The remaining three charged the defend ant with t.e crime of receiving, recording and rei-terlng bets and wagers upon the result of ■ horse race, and on them the eaae was submitted !•• tin Jury. The u feadant was convicted and the Jndg meat on that conviction unanimously affirmed by tl.t Appellate Division. 1l.e afltrmaace being unanimous, this curt i* precluded from considering the objec Hon raised hy the defendant that the evidence was insufficient to warrant tbe conviction. The rabstan tlal question In the case, however, i- raised by aa exception to the court- refuaal to charge as re quested by the defendant. This exception survive* the unanimous aflh*manea "The evidence In support of the prosecution shows that the defendanl did make beta with certain per sons on ■ hone .m. •■There was no evidence to show that he recorded or registered a bel in any other way than by n reiving a memorandum made hy the party with whom he lx-t. Ohlorff. ••Tin court Instructed the jury that the making ol an ordinary l" 1 on ■ horse race was not a violation S the Penal l.av. unless the person making the b made some 1 1 or registry of it or it was accom panel wiili the u 1 some part of the parapbei nali.i of the profess! il gambler, of which last there was no evidence in the case. Thereupon tbe defendant requ bI .1 the court to charge that if tin-defendanl made a bet with Otdorff it was not ■ violation of tbe Penal Law for him to aei I from Oldorff a record or memorandum of the same. p. w hi. h the . ourl responded: ••I will charge It tbe jury do not tiud fairly that he accepted this memorandum and thereby and by having ii for som appreciable time registered and p , rded a bel they could ii"t and him guilty. ••To this modification and refuaal ;■• fhaigf as requested Ibe defendanl exe pted. it hi to t. borw in mind thai tbe offenses with which the defendant waa charged wer mmitted pri. ;■ to the amendment of tl • penal law In I01O, making bookmaklng and poolselllng, with or without writing, • crime, but that the onlj question submitted lo the Jury was ivbether the defendant bad recorded or regi !,i-. Thai mahin a bel or wager unaecomi uiih ., n ord 01 reglstrj was not al the time of th.~ transaction a .rime was decided bj this court i 1 pie ex rel Lichtenstein vs. Langan, and the qw 1I..11 hi whether the receipt bj the opposite party ..f a memorandum of the wager wai ■ reglatry or record bj Ibe defendant. We think dearly it was ■ot. To bring the „-r within the statute ii wain. t necessary thai the defendanl personally should Bahe the record or registry ol the wager. If it si,;,- made bj any person In hi- employ or on bia behalf, thai w uld be suflcleni lo charge him. Bui thi« memorandum waa not mad.- on his behalf. "AhM if am Indorse men! had been made on the Oldorff memorandum bj the defendanl or by any ..no in his behalf thai would have been a registry of a i.ci made by htm. But if the mi n receipt of the I memorandum by the defendant waa ■ reglstrj by him necessarily the receipt of a memorandum by aui one who might make a bet with a poul SeJlef or a bookmaker would make him a criminal equally with the |h o1 seller or bookmaker. As appears from the discussion hi the Licfatenstela ease such was not the Intent of the law. It was directed against public gambling and professional gambli re, and aa there -aid. while all gambling had been for a long time Illegal in this state, only professional gambling and the maintenance of gambling resorts have been subjected to the penalties of the criminal law. As already said since the decision In the Lichtenstein ease the Legislature has amended the Penal Law section here Involved - as lo make it ■ crime t. engage In pool selling or honk making with or without writing, tmt it ha- not changed in any respect the lav a- to recording and registering bets." Bacing men who could be found to talk on the decision are of the opinion that matters will not b • i. Iped much by it. They express the opinion, as the arrest ami conviction of the defendant was made under the Hatt-Agaew law, that it ha- little bearing ..n the present conditions which exist under tin- Agnew-Perklns legislation.
