Important Move In New York Betting Case, Daily Racing Form, 1912-07-02

1 I 1 ta taIMPORTANT I IIMPORTANT IMPORTANT MOVE IN NEW YORK BETTING CASE I + y New York July 1 IThe The case of Paul Shane who whowas whowits was arrested at the spring mectIu meeting of the tailedllmmts CnilllllIuut United Hunts Haem Kacing Association Belmont Park TcrmimialL Terminal J llUllIlI llUllIlII I L 1 I Ion on dune 0 charged si with 1111 lJookmnkln hookiuaUing ennuibefore came camehltorc before Supreme ulllInJe Court Justice Towusend Scudder Scudderat klllhj l lat at Mineola Saturday on u writ of habeas corpsobtatued CIIlJIIISobtalllld corpus obtained 1J by Surrogate Ullolte John J T Graham as counselfor cuuus1fUl counsel for the accused Tills was an unexpected lucre lucresluice move since iuce the ease had ll been l n set for a preemptory hlnjn hlnjnon hearing hearinggou ou July 2 before Justice of the Peace Charles F FGittens Gittens Itteus at Henipstead L 1 1 with a lIellllt deputy sheriff sheriffMichtei Michael Williams as is the complaining witness witness1Istrict witnessDistrict wltucsDistrict District Attorney ttlll1le Charles N W Wysoug ou of Xa Nassau NassauCounty au auCOUllt COUllt County was waswholl wholly unprepared for the service of ofthe ofthe the writ which was served on Justice Mittens who whohat v1uohad had paroled Shane in the custll custody of his counseland couusclaud counsel and a CUII copy of It dispatched immediately to thcollice the theoltiee ollice of the District Attornl Attorney Assistant Districtattorney District Districtttollle Attorney ttollle McCarty lcCart appeared for the Ilcu1llclIrlo people Surrogate peopleSurrogate lIrlo ate Graham argued his case ase learnedly and andat tntlat at g great cat length citing 11UIlIlrOUS numerous rUliugs of the theCourt timeourt Court ourt of Appeals Pllclls on the various phases of 150kwakiug book hooklIIaldn lIIaldn making The Shane hane case is the tilt first t to be instituted tustittteduuder iustItutltuulier under the with or without writing amendment tutentlweutto nllenlllllentto to the AjriicwIIart auti antibetting bettlug lawslime lawiThe laws lawsTlie The main contention of Surrogate Graham was wastha witsthat tha that t bookmaklng has allead already been defined by tbeCourt the theCourt Court of Appeals in this state and that the merehusertion mere merehIHrtio11 Insertion of four new words Ir s in the law hid des R hiotciutuge liot liotehautl change its essential 1lI1IIuitl uieauiiig so long lougas as the finiteterm finite tiuiteterm term leult remains lIs emlmdied in the statutes statutesMr statutesllr tatutesI I Mr 11 Graham submitted his brief us soon as he hindconcluded hud concluded his oral argument and the assistant u dis dlstrkt s strict ¬ trict attolu attorney explaining that ii he had been takclIcoIllJllclll taken takencompletely completely by sUllIri surprise asked for two days Inwhich iiiwhichi in which to prepare the uecessarr necessary papers This rccl1st re rev revquest ¬ quest was promptly granted Justice Scudder culliler si said saidYou saidYou Id IdYou You Ilm may take your our time for this is a vcr very hoporlaut 1mpfJrtant im ¬ portant matterSlwue matter matterShallC matterShane Shane wu was paroled in the cm custody 04b of his connldIlclllling counselpending counsel pending a decision of the Supreme Court As Is s thlmattel the theuuttter matter now stands Justice iif of the Peace Gittenswust Gittens Gttensmnst must await adjudication on the writ If Justice TustieoScudder Justlee5ellllller Scudder finds that Shane lul1ll did not violate the law ItwllI it itir ir will wllIC ili IK be C posl possible ll for a anyone Ol1e to make a polite wager wagerwitlmout aI1 aI1without without goIn going into the hllshe business s of the thing OJhcln or orbeing hcln being dragged to court on suspicion If the WlitIs writ writis is dismissed the defendant will undoubtedly be indicted in inllictld ¬ dicted J by the I grand 11 lid jnr jury and stand trial trialAt trialAt trllliAt At the outset of his argument ar umcllt Surrogate Grabanmsaid Graham GrahamalII said alII that the Information intended to charge the thedpfltHlaut timedefeudaut defendant with the crime of ltooklUaldl bookmakiig under am amuueudment allmnellliment an amendment ltalisedIII of section 980 of the Penal Law passed iu 11110 which + was Ile designed llIlll to do away with all allforums ullfurms forms of betting blttlnJeln even among friends Comisdconten Counsel Counselce ce conten contended nttnded cll that there was not 110tone one Iilu single le thln thing futhe In hithe the information to show h w that the relater was guilty guiltyof ul1t of Jookll1akln bookmaking as interpreted by the highest courtsMr courts courtsMr Mr 11 Graham outlined four cardinal propositions of ofthe ofthe the hookmaldng huokll1akln businessfirst IJ1I business businessIirst lnels lnelsPIIt first he said there must be a scheme of laying lmiyittgoilds h ln lnodlls wills for the i purpose of giving In the hl layer er a profit on onthe onthe the results 111 day h by du day Second ccond there must be pub ¬ licit licity lieitythe plllllicit the posting of odds Third a place for 01 the thetakin thetaking takin taking of wa wagers wagersa era a stand peculiar to the l book hookmalier ouk ¬ maker himself And fourth there must be an anactual auactual actual exchange of 1ll0ne Money MoneyPrivate money moneyPrivate II Private ate hettln betting Is nttlll utterly different said Surro Surroate SurrolIte ¬ gate ate Graham and I cannot find that it has ever everbecn everbeen been the subject of criminal prosecution prosecutionHe He argued also that it would ould be manifestly ridicu rldieulops rlllleulous ¬ lous to Sl say that the repetition of hettln betting could be beuncll beurged urged n as a l business or cons considered 11111111 a violation of the thelaw thelaw law for the reason that if any pl private nlte citizens bllin having 1 to be risked could not hl be debarred from Iculn Iculna leaving lensinga a wai wager er for the full amount with some onlC friemlneither flicmllIeitller friend neither could he be prevented from wagering a cent centeach centeaeh each IIInon among 100 friends friendsThe friendsThe The information I before fore Your Honor continued continuedMr Mr lr Graham says speclfical specifically that the defendant defendantlctted dlfellliantettell betted ettell prlvate privately He went to the race course u ua as as asa a private individual He did not occupy any par ticular 1111ticular place and was not equipped with any sort of ofpnraphermuulis ofpnraphernalia paraphernalia for the purpose of Ia laying lng odds on the theraces timeraces races racesThe The information upon which which this complaint isbased is isbHId based is ah absolutely ulutely de destitute tltnte of anything that thathriugs thathrlu hrlu brings s this defendant nn under cr the ban of Section 9S0of 980 of the Penal Law LawJudge LawTu Judge Tu e Maddox h holds hls that every bookmaker Is Isa isa a betting man but that it does not follow ever every Jcttin betting everybetting man is a hookwal bookmaker l He find finds that l hook hookmakln lorkniaking ook makln making must necessarily have cave with it some of the thecontmitants theommltallts commitants aha always s recognized and ideptified l eQtified with withthat withthn thn that t business busluessMr businessMr businesslh Mr Graham then cited the Sturgis tul ls case before the theCourt theCourt Court of Appeals in which Orlando Jones had ex extracted extractell ¬ tracted from him a bookmakers definition of the theIclencl thescience science and practice of the game gamca a definition which whichth whichthe th the court ha has l1TlhllI1lhls upheld upheldThis upheldThis This was prior to the amendment of 1910 but Itthrows it itthrows throws much light upon the present situation In InthIs Inthis this case the People vs s Sturgis H 152 le New YorkReports XorkHcports York Reports the Court of Appeals held that even the therecording therlcOldln rlcOldln recording of b lwts ts and the possession of sheets heets Wafnot was wasnot not bookmaking bccau because O the defendant had no fixed fixedplace fix ° d place of oflloln doing business and gave ae no token of any anytransaction anytrunsnction transaction transactionJoseph byOrlando Joseph Stur Sturgis ls and some others thers were employed h by Orlando Jones as clerks when ou October 24 4 1 1895Star 1S05 SfJ SfJStur Star Sturgis 18 wa was arrested at a meeting of the West Wctheter Westchester chester RIcln Racing Association The decision of the thtC timeCourt C Court lurt of Appeals in this case contains the follow followIn following In ing which was read by counsel for ShaneThe Shane ShaneThe srhotestified The prosecution called Jones as a witness whateftitild who testified to the distinction between bookmaking andwhat and andwhat what was done on that occasion He was admlttcllto admitted to the grounds without chal charge e as ns he was the OWlllrof owner ownerof of a horse entered for the races but the relator JMartinl J JMartin Martin paid for his admission Neither Jones nor northe nor northc the relator had am any desk stand chair rest or Snpport sup support ¬ port of any kind nor did they occupy army any booth boothtenement boothtenment tenement building or part thereof or any partI particular partleularspot ulnr ulnrpot spot pot upon the grounds Nor or did either exchaneIIny exchange exchangeany any money with any person making a wager with r Jones or exchange deliver or transfer to any anyone anyonewith onewith one with w whom ho11m a w Wl wager roger I1 w was as made nn any record memo memolaulium utemorauduui ¬ randum or document of all any kind or subscribe 11 by byuawe name initials or otherwise 1I11 any record relstl registry or ormeworutdum orruellllllantlnlll memorandum in the possession of another of an any bet anybet or wager to be retained J by such other or uu any anyperson per person ol as evidence of a bet or wager No OIItlsWlrl odds oddswere were posted mone money exchanged or memorandum of ofan ofany an any kind nI received IItI delivered or transferred transferredYet transferredYet triUlsfenellYet forInlalon Yet the relator was held by the lIa Magistrate lstrate for forviolation violation of G Section + clion 351 51 1 of the Penal Code A writof writof writ I of habeas corpus was yas obtained and also a certiorari certiorarito I Itll to review the decision of the Magistrate The re re ¬ I Ilatur andTermiuer lator relator was ns discharged by the Court of Oycr O er and I Terminer TerminerThe The prosecution carried the case to the Appellate ApllcllateDilslun Division which affirmed the decision of the lower lowerCUIlt lowercourt court All And on March 2 1S97 the Court of Ap Appeals p plIeals peals reaffirmed the decisionMost IlecisionIo decision decisionMost rlCallstlw Most Io t ee1 every one familiar with racing topics recalls recallsthe the decision tlpd iou of the Court of Appeals in the case of ofthe ofthe the People a against ainst Sol Liehtenstein on November 9 Uwon won This opinion also 180 cited in the Shane case holds caschollis that oral hettin betting is not bookmaking bookmaklngSurrogate thCHtwo Surrogate Graham argued that even thol though h thCHI these two important decisions were rendered before limeumteudtuent thcalllellllmcnt the I amendment of the AgnewHart laws had been cnaeted en acted just so Iou long as the word bookmaking wa was wasused i used in the i statutes its specific meaning as s interpreted inter ¬ preted ll by the lesto courts t beforehand r tl could fdll fdllgf not not gf gfh gfs gfst h be st shaded shadedinto It into something u1l1ethln else elseA elsea A cocktail is a cocktail said the SUlro Surrogate atc byway by hFwa wa way of jl Illustrating slrntng his point whether you you IIU have a acherl aclmerry cherl cherry Injcdlngtwo in it or a Spanish olive And so h by injecting two or three words into the laws relatln relating to bookmmuL book hooklIIakln mmuL lIIakln making hug you llli do not chance the huslne business s as ulreall already Ilall legally alreadylegally defined definedThe deliuedFlue Ietlned1hl The purpose of the above citations was to show showtha slmowthat tha that t bookmakiug has IICI been n construed by the courts and that to tln find the relator in the present cat case jiuilty casedniity uit of llIukln making book would be to cma emasculate culate the thelaw timelaw law lawAnother SurrogateGrahaut Another strong point brought out h by Surro Surrogate ate ateGlahllll Graham was that a hettln betting man without memorminda lIIemorm memor ¬ anda m a or pharphcrnalia or fixed pL place uce of In laying ln wa wag wagors ers could never attract the ma masses es that it would befoolhardy be hefoolhulllr foolhardy for any IU man to do business on a iargcscale 11lrClieale large scale 11 by the process of mcn mental al arithmetic that any IInybookmaker bookmaker who had the kllowled knowledge e of systematic s stcl1latic bet bolting stcl1laticbet tin might lay odds on a small field of horl horses imorseswith s swIth with a few persons but he could not be an actual actualbooluimtker uctualboulmmklr bookmaker without clerical t work + ork And counsel 11pellted re repeated ¬ peated that the information laid before Justice of ofthe oftho tho Peace Gittens did not charge that Shane was wasequipped wasequipped equipped for the conduct of the bookmaking bust huslIllS bustlies ¬ IllS ness as smicltThe such suchThe suchThe The latest decision of the Court of Appeals written wlittell writ ¬ ten by Chief Justice Cullen in which all his ass asso associates ¬ ciates concur has an important bearing bearln upon the thecase thecase case January2i at issue This opinion handed down January 23 lIchaelLmnlllix HJl 1912 iu the case of the People against Michael Lambrix and recorded in 204 New York Reports Isthe is isthe the only interpretation of the law slnc since the p passage pas s ssage ¬ sage of the with or without writing amendment hut amenllmenthut it must be remembered that the offvnse chargedoccurred charel1OCCUl1ld charged occurred billLambrix prior to the introduction of the mien new bill lcphantHutll Lambrix was an 111 engineer at the White 1 Elephant Hotel in Buffalo He was sentenced to the peni ¬ tcntiar tentiary penitcntiar for six months on the charge of making a bet with a police detective on a horse race at Jack Jacksomiville JucksOlllllc ¬ sonville Fla in March March lIlch1910recelvln 1910 1910reeeiying receiving retordlumgand reconllllgIn1 recording and rcisterln registering bets ou a horse race in viola violatou ton of ofSeetoll Secton 980 of the penal law lawThe lawThe lawTime The headlines In the law reports contain the fol ¬ lowing lowingWhen following When 1lueu hen rccclln receiving a memorandum from a personwith pcrsouwith person sutliclentto with whom the defendant had bet i is not sutlicicut to establish a violation of the statute The statuteThe partIt text of the decision reads in part It is to be borne iu mind not only OI1v that the theofeuces theoffcnecs offences with which the defendant was clil1r charged ed werecounitittcti were committed penallaw prior to the amendment of the penal law making malln bookmaking and pool scllin selling with 01wlthollt or orwltbout without thatthe writing a crime I L 1910 ch 48 488 but that the only question submitted to the Jury was whether whethertho tho defendant had recorded or rel registered terell bets cts That Thatmaking lh1tlIlakln lIlakln making a bet or wager unaccompanied with record recordor or rcistr registry was not at the time of the transaction a acrime acrime crime reILlchtenstcin was decided J by this court in People ex rcl Lichtenstein vs s Langan lOG 190 N Y 200 and tho thoclUegtioll timequestion partyof question whether the receipt by the oPPositc opposite palhof party of the memorandum of the wager waer was a regllltr registry 01rccord or orrecord record b by the defendant We think clearly It was wasnot wasnot not notTo notTo To bring the case within the statute It was notaccessary not notlwcess3r lwcess3r necessary maethe that lint the defendant personally should make mae the record or registry of the wager if If it was made hyhis by 11111dchy an any person el on III his employ or on his behalf or by his direction that would be sufficient to charge him himBut himBut himIJut But this memorandum was not made on his be ¬ half behalf Also if an any indorsement had lI been en made on on the onthe Ol Olilorff orlf memorandum J by the defendant or by byan byanyone an anyone onc on his behalf that would have been a aTlgIStIT aregistry registry of a het made by him But If the merere mercrelcillt mere re receipt eipt of the memorandum h by the defendant was a are aregistry registry re lstr 1J by him necessarily the receipt of a memoranduut memo memorallllUlII ¬ randum by anyone who might make a bet with a aJloolsl1lr aioolseller Itoolsollrr or a bookmaker would make him a crimi criminal ¬ nal equally with the poolS poolsellcr lIer or the bookmakerAs bookmaker bookmakerAs As appears from the discussion in the Lichtcnstein Lichten 1lchtcnSicin stein CU case I such wn was not the intent of the law Itwas 1tYlS It was directed against public gambling and professional IIIofesslunal profes ¬ sional gamblers and as was there said while all allgambling allulllJlln gambling ulllJlln has for a lon long time been illegal in this thisIta thisstate Ita state 1 professional gambling llIlblln and the maintenance of ofgautbliug gambling Ullbllll resorts alone have been subjected to thepenalties the thepenalties penalties of the criminal law lairAs As s already said saidshire saidsince since Legislature the decision In the Lichtciisteln case the Legis ¬ lature has Ilm amended nded th the Penal Law section here Involnll in ¬ volved so as to wake it a crime to engage in poolselling pool poolsellin sellin selling writlnrbut or borJkm1kin bookinakiag with or without writin writing but it bas not challe changed in any respect the law agto as asto to recording and registering betsThe bets botsThe lIetsThe The judgment of conviction must he reversed and andthe andthe the defendant discharged from custody