People v. Lyttle

167 N.E. 466, 251 N.Y. 347, 1929 N.Y. LEXIS 730
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 11, 1929·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

So far as the record informs us, the game conducted by the defendant was one. involving a trial or test of skill, and not one dependent upon the drawing or choice of numbers. If the fact is otherwise, as the People’s brief-suggests, appropriate evidence should have been offered to bring the case within the statute.

Penal Law, section 974, permits a prosecution where the result of a wager is dependent on the selection of numbers, even though not strictly the game of policy, but in such circumstances the information should be framed upon that theory.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

People v. Lyttle, 167 N.E. 466, 251 N.Y. 347, 1929 N.Y. LEXIS 730 (N.Y. 1929).

167 N.E. 466 (People v. Lyttle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Livingston
24 Misc. 2d 987 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
People v. Pierson
279 A.D. 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)
People v. Hines
168 Misc. 453 (New York Supreme Court, 1938)
People v. Cohen
160 Misc. 10 (New York Magistrate Court, 1936)
In re Praither
246 A.D. 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
People v. Weber
245 A.D. 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
People v. Edelstein
231 A.D. 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)
People v. Nakamori
231 A.D. 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)