view raw text
TEXT OF RECENT NEW YORK DECISION. Impcrtant Definition of What Constitutes No Offense , Against Anti-Betting Law. New York. September -•" .- Justice Neintaad, in i dismissing the Indictments for alleged bookmaklng against Messrs. Jandorf and Iyott at Mlneola a l tew days ago. "sed the following language: "The motion to dismiss the lirst count ill the indictment arnica charges the crime of bookmaklng, is haed on the ground that the evidence in this ease . as here adduced does not show that these defendants ; wen engaged in such a transaction as constitutes , bookmaking. "Before the cnactmenl of Chapter 4.ts of the Laws ; of Tiio. it m- accessary to have written evidences of the transaction in order to eoiistitnto bookmaklng, . I. ut by the passage by the legislature of Chapter 4.is of the Laws ,.f 1810. bookmaklng was prohibited, whether with or without writing. from which it t follows that ihe Legislature must have had in mind I thai there could be bookmaklng by means of oral 1 ; transactions. But. both as to written and oral book-making, • in oi der to constitute the offense, there * must he such a transaction as will constitute the s crime of bonkmaking as it has been donned by Mr. Justice Halgbi in the case of People ex rol Lich-tenstein - vs. Langan 196 N. V.. 260, at p. 2t;4. ihe definition given by Justice Haight in that case as s to what constitutes bookmaklng has not been changed 1 by the Court of Appeals in any case that has been J called to my attention. Now. then, whai does s Jndge liaigbt state to he the scheme called book-making": - H. writes as follows a. MS: •■ The ordinary bookmaker i- a person who followa s the races mid becomes fully informed with reference i to the skill, speed and endurance of the horses that t are entered for races. These horse- are taken from a one meeting to another of the various racing as-n-c;aiioiis. - hihI thereby the bookmakers are enabled d to prepare a list ol the horses entered for a race, with the odds so arranged as t percentages as s to g|ve them a profit whichever the- winning horse e iiihv be. These schedule-, are written out and either r posted or circulated by the clerks or ageata of the e bookmaker among the persons in attendance upon the e races and their bets solicited, and when a customer is found he is given a check Indicating the amount it and the horse upon which he has placed his money. This was ihe ncbeme under which bookmakerers were e enabled to Induce men, women and peraoaa of imma i Lire years to part with their money, thus enabling g the bookmaker to reap great protits out of the public ic and to bee Ihe chief supporters of the races. lids is evil which the Legislature s mght to prevent by the enactment of the Hart-Agaen bill. 1. Chanters 506 and 507 of the Lawa of 1808. 4* ■ Now. the evidence la this case shows that John in . Thompsi n. a constalde, was asked by the defendant. t. a. Jandorf, What do you want: To which Thompson ■n m replied that In- wanted to make a bet. Thereupon •n H Jandorf ban. led blm a slip of paper and bold him to to write the name of the horse on it. Thompson isked •it Jandorf "ami the odds were, and Jandorf quoted d the odds to him at 2 12 to 1. Jandorf then told Id Thompson to write tie name of the hoise and the ie oddfl on the slip of paper and his initials, which •h Thompson did. and handed back the slip and two ro dollars to the defendant Jandorf. who handed tin-slip tie and money to the defendant Pyott. A like trail n suction in substantially the same form took place ce between Thompson and the defendants liter in the he da v. and also a like transaction between tlieni the he the next day. the twenty seventh. • Mr. Thompson and alsa the witness. Mr Kars-1 ■s- i, testllied that tiny saw slips passed by the he t I 1 ; • * s - s 1 J s - s i t a - d s e r e e it e i g ic 1. in t. ■n •n to to •it d Id the ie •h two ro tie n ce the he the he ■s- the he - defendant Jandorf, en both days, to a number of people. Mr. Thompson tints the number at as hih aa : fifty slips. The question now is whether what those . defendants did on those days was bookmaklng. I am of the opinion that, tested by the definition of bookntaking given by Judge HaighL the proof does ; not make out the crime charged. The scheme sought to be prohibited by the enactment of the law was the endeavor of bookmakers to induce men i and women and persona of immature years to part with their money and to solicit bets from them: in other words, there inusl be affirmative action on i the part of the bOOkSMker or the person who is charged with bookmaklng, showing that he solicits and induces persons to ennage with him. became. as Jndge Haight says, this was the scheme under r which bookmakers were enabled to induce men and 1 women and persons of Immature years to part with i their money, thereby enabling the bookmakers to reap great protit. etc. "Now. from this evidence we find that these men i who were willing to make l ets. were approached by i- witnesses of the- prosecution, and they were asked what they wanted, and they stated they wanted to t bet. and thereupon these defendants bel with them, - Then- is not a word of evidence that these defend-r ants solicited them or Induced them or even asked j them, or requested them to engage in a bet with h these defendants, and the transaction, it seems to me. is nothing more than an engagement between n individuals that resulted in their making of a wager upon a name race, which, of itself, is not Illegal, because this statute is aimed at the offense of bank-». making as defined in said decision. "I will now take up the second and third counts s of the indictment, charging these defendants with h the crime of recording and registering liets and d wagers upon the result of trials and contests of if skill, sp, ,. and power of endurance of horses. It was decided in the ease of People vs. I.ambrix. i, 204 N. Y.. 981, at page -,t 4. that the mere receipt ,t of the memorandum by the defendant did not con i- -dilute this offense. In the course of the opinion a. in that case Judge Cullen said, however. To bring ig the case within the statute it was not necessary v thai the defendant personally should make the record ■il or registry of the wager. If it was made by any iy person in his employ, or oi his behalf or by his is direction, that would be sufficient to charge him. "It is s.uglit to hold these defendants upon that purl of the evidence in this case in which it is is shown that these defendants handed slips; to the ie witnesses and t ld them to put «.n them the name ie of ihe horse-, the price and their initials, in other ar words, it is claimed that the defendants constituted •d the complaining witnesses in this case, with whom in : . ; i i r 1 i i i- t - j h to n they had the transactions, their agents, and that they were acting in the matter through them, but it would seem to me an undue extension of the theory of agency, especially as applied to a criminal case, to hold that these men were acting for and on behalf of these defendants. ■The complaining witnesses were acting for them-. selves: they wanted to make a bet: they said they wanted to make a bet. and thereupon these defendants handed them slips of pajier and told them to make these memorandums. Now. in order to make the bet. it was necessary for these witnesses to write these memorandums, evidently, and if they had not done so they could not have made the bet: : so to accomplish their purpose they willingly of their own accord and for their own purposes made a memorandum and handed it to the defendant, There was no evidence in this case that these eio-i lindants had clerks or assistants or persons whom J they had specially employed for the purpose of act ing for them in making memorandums, or even that r they engaged anybody to take memorandums, with-1 out _ain. voluntarily, for them. "I am of the opinion, therefore, that the second j and third counts of the Indictment have not been sustained by such evidence as would justify the . submission of this Case to the jury: therefore, the 3 court ad Tinea the jury in this case to acquit the de-.. . fenelants of the charges made against them in the P lirst. second and third counts of this indictment."
