People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin

128 A.D. 599, 23 N.Y. Crim. 92, 113 N.Y.S. 188, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 539
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 128 A.D. 599 (People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin, 128 A.D. 599, 23 N.Y. Crim. 92, 113 N.Y.S. 188, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

Clarke, J.:

The relator was arrested upon a warrant issued by a city magistrate, in the second division in the city of New York, charged with having violated the provisions of section 351 of the Penal Code, as amended by chapter 507 of the Laws of 1908. The sworn information upon which the warrant was issued set up that on the 16th. of June, 1908, at the race course of the Brooklyn -Jockey Club at Gravesend, borough of Brooklyn, county of Kings, a race course authorized by statute, relator made an oral bet of five dollars witli one Ball; that said Ball bet that “ Bostrum,” a horse entered in a race to be then and there run, would win, and relator accepted said bet; that the race was run and Bostrum lost; that Ball, while standing upon the lawn of said race course, and after said race had-been decided, handed to the relator the sum of five dollars, who thereupon received the same. On being arraigned the rolator moved to dismiss the-proceeding on the ground that the information did not set forth facts sufficient to constitute the commission of a crime. The motion was denied and relator held for trial. [601]*601Thereafter he sued out a writ of habeas corpus, and the writ having been sustained and the prisoner discharged, the district attorney brings this appeal.

The question presented is whether the receiving of a sum of money in payment of an oral bet, made between two individuals upon a race track upon the result of a race then and there to be run, constitutes a crime. The statute invoked by the learned district attorney is section 351 of the Penal Code, as amended by chapter 507 of the Laws of 1908. That section provides as follows:

“ § 351. Pool-selling, book-making, bets and wagers, et cetera.— Any person who engages in pool-selling or book-making at any time or place; or any person who keeps or occupies any room, shed, tenement, tent, booth, or building, float or vessel, or any part thereof, or who occupies any place or stand of any kind, upon any public or private grounds within this State, with books, papers, apparatus or paraphernalia, for the purpose of recording or registering bets or wagers, or of selling pools, and any person who records or registers bets or wagers, or sells pools upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed or power of endurance, of man or beast, or upon the result of any political nomination, appointment or election ; or upon the result of any lot, chance, casualty, unknown or contingent event whatsoever; or any person who receives, registers, ■ records or forwards, or purports or pretends to receive, register, record or forward, in any manner whatsoever, any money, thing or consideration of value, bet or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being bet or wagered, by or for any other person, or sells pools, upon any such result; or any person who, being the owner, lessee, or occupant of any room, shed, tenement, tent, booth or building, float or vessel, or part thereof, or of any grounds within this State, knowingly permits the same to be used or occupied for any of these purposes, or therein keeps, exhibits or employs any device or appaiatus for the purpose of recording or registering such bets or wagers, or the selling of such pools, or becomes the custodian or depositary for gain, hire or reward, of any money, property or thing of value, staked, wagered or pledged, or to be wagered or pledged upon any such result; or any person who aids, assists or abets in any manner in any of the said acts, which are hereby forbidden, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punish[602]*602able by imprisonment in ■& penitentiary or county jail for a period of not more than one year.”

The learned district attorney makes his claim under that clause of the section which reads, “any person who receives, registers, records or forwards, or purports or pretends to receive, register, record or forward, in any manner whatsoever, any money, thing or consideration of. value, bet or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being bet or wagered, by or for any other person,” and asserts that the facts did state a crime for the .reason that they showed that the relator, Collins, did “ receive * * * money * * * bet .and wagered * *. by and for another person (to wit, Rall) upon the result of a horse race.”

Prior to -the last Constitutional Convention of the State the Constitution of 1846 provided in article 1, section 10, as follows: “ No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings.; nor shall any lottery hereafter be authorized or .any sale of lottery tickets allowed within this State,” The Bevised Constitution adopted in 1894, and which went into effect the 1st day of January, 1895, provided in article 1,, section 9, as follows: “No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably" to assemble and- to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by due judicial proceedings; nor shall any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or any other kind of gambling' hereafter be authorized or allowed within this State; and the Legislature shall- pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section.”

At the time of the adoption of this Constitution all betting and gambling was illegal, except in the case of betting on race courses hereafter considered. The Bevised Statutes (Pt. 1, chap. 20, tit. 8) provided as follows: Section 8. “All wagers, bets or stakes, made to depend upon any race, or upon any gaming by lot or chance, or upon any lot, chance, casualty, or unknown or contingent event whatever, shall be unlawful. All contracts for or on. account of any money or property, or thing in action so wagered, bet or staked, shall be void. Section 9.- Any person who shall pay, deliver or deposit any money, [603]*603property or thing in action, upon the event of any wager or bet herein prohibited, may sue for and recover the same of the winner or person to whom the same shall be paid or delivered, and of the stakeholder or other person in whose hands shall be deposited any such wager, bet or stake, or any part thereof, whether the same shall have been paid over by such stakeholder or not, and whether any such wáger be lost or not.” Section 14. Every person who shall, by playing at any game, or by betting on the sides or hands of such as do play, lose at any time or sitting, the sum or value of twenty-five dollars or upwards, and shall pay or deliver the same or any part thereof, may, within three calendar months after such payment or delivery, sue for and recover the money or value of the things so lost and paid or delivered, from the winner thereof.” Section 15. In case the person losing such sum or value shall not, within the time aforesaid, in good faith and without collusion, sue for the sum or value so by him lost and paid or delivered, and prosecute such suit to effect without unreasonable delay, the overseers of the poor of the town where the offence was committed, may sue for and recover the sum or value so lost and paid, together with treble the said sum or value, from the winner thereof, for the benefit of the poor.” (1 R. S. 662, 663.)

In Ruckman v. Pitcher (1 N. Y.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Wilkerson
73 Misc. 2d 895 (New York County Courts, 1973)
Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v. Golden
203 N.E.2d 210 (New York Court of Appeals, 1964)
People v. Carillo
42 Misc. 2d 74 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
People v. Koenig
34 Misc. 2d 711 (New York Court of Special Session, 1962)
People v. Farone
308 N.Y. 305 (New York Court of Appeals, 1955)
Shillitani v. Valentine
184 Misc. 77 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)
Watts v. Malatesta
186 N.E. 210 (New York Court of Appeals, 1933)
People ex rel. Weiner v. Barr
131 Misc. 80 (New York Supreme Court, 1927)
People v. McDonald
177 A.D. 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Matter of Roberts
108 P. 315 (California Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 A.D. 599, 23 N.Y. Crim. 92, 113 N.Y.S. 188, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-collins-v-mclaughlin-nyappdiv-1908.