view raw text
Lamont Loses His Appeal for Owners License for 1948 in New York State Joint Board of Commission And Jockey Club Releases Reasons for Its Decision NEW YORK, N.Y., June 28. Daniel Lamont, Altoona, Pa., chiefly known to the turf as the owner of El Mono, winner of the McLennan and Widener Handicaps, lost his appeal for an owners license for 1948. A joint session of the New York State Racing Commission and two stewards of The Jockey Club promulgated this determination at a joint session held June 19, and released today, declaring: "After hearing the evidence and examining the briefs and memoranda of counsel, the joint session of the State Racing Commission and two stewards of The Jockey Club, acting as a board, has unanimously determined that the stewards of The Jockey Club properly exercised their discretion in refusing an owners license to Daniel Lamont for the year beginning April 1, 1948." Ashley Trimble Cole, commission chairman; David Dows and William C. Langley, commissioners, and Alfred G. Vanderbilt and George D. Widener, stewards of The Jockey Club, comprised the board. Counsel for The Jockey Club gave six reasons for refusing to grant Lamont a license, only three of which were considered at the joint session requested by the owner. These are: 1 "That Mr. Lamont is or has recently been engaged in bookmaking and is and has been connected with persons so engaged." 2 "That at the time of making his application herein he owned property where bookmaking was carried on." 3 "That his engagements in, and connection with, bookmaking, if they have ceased, have not ceased for a sufficiently long period to justify the stewards to issue the license herein." These conclusions were reached at a stewards meeting held on May 12, 1948. According to the statement of some 3,000 words issued by the racing commission today, "there is no dispute that Mr. Lamont was the owner of the real property occupied by a building known as Currys poolroom." It is also stated that Lamont says that he sold the property on April 7 because an investigator employed by The Jockey Club was trying to get him to admit that he was a bookmaker and that "there must be something wrong in his owning this property, although Lamont testified that the property was purchased as a good investment and that no bookmaking was conducted there. A Mr. Reinacher, an investigator for the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau, and a Pinkerton operative unnamed gave evidence tending to demonstrate that Currys poolroom was a bookmaking establishment. Witnesses from Altoona said on Lamonts behalf that the better people, "judges, attorneys, doctors, professional and business men," patronized Currys, declaring that "all they can do is buy these confections candy and soda and play pool." An attorney, an assistant pastor of Lamonts church, a fellow shoe manufacturer and a high school teacher testified in his favor, declaring that they had never seen bookmaking carried on in Currys, though they had visited the place occasionally. The racing commission .statement declare. "So far as the testimony of these four character witnesses goes, none of them had even actually seen bookmaking conducted in Currys poolroom. The testimony of the two investigators assigned by The Jockey Club, even limited to so much of their testimony as was not hearsay, constitutes sufficient evidence that bookmaking was carried on at the premises. The picture presented in applicants behalf of the leading citizens of Altoona congregating m Currys "dilapidated" and "worthless" premises in considerable numbers to in- dulge in soft drinks, candy bars and general conversation carries no conviction."" In conclusion, the board found: 1 "The applicant has been engaged in bookmaking as a banker prior to the adoption of the mutuel system of betting in this state. 2 "The applicant from August 1, 1948, to April 7, 1948, and at the time of his application for a license, still was the owner of the premises in Altoona, Pa., occupied by Currys poolroom, in which bookmaking was openly conducted. The applicant was a frequent visitor to such premises and was generally there, when not at his shoe manufacturing business in Altoona, and is chargeable with knowledge of such book-making activities. 3 "The applicant had actual knowledge of such bookmaking activities at Currys poolroom. 4 "The applicant is or recently has been engaged in bookmaking. 5 "The applicant gave false answer to question 12 of his application for a license." Question 12 reads: "Have you ever owned, operated or been identified with, a hand-book or a bookmaking establishment?" Lamonts answer was "No."
