New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-03-08
Is ROOKMAKING LEGAL9

The argument on the motion to continue tho tenn
norary injunction restraining the Police Board from
interfering with the boolmgking carried on in con
nectiOn with the late walking matcn at Ihe Mau'oh
Square Garden, which was granted by Justice Don
ohue and made rrturnable after the Walking lnatcn
was over was had yesterday before Justice Law
renee in the Supreme Court Chambers Assslaht
Corporation Counsel Lacombe opposed IN motion
lie read aildavits by policemen; n Whicn ile SHs
TEN of bookmaking was described in detail. MI
Lacombc argued that bookmaking, with us DiaGk-
boards and stalking Of money upon tne reIn in
made il Illegal for any person TO keep or MAINTAIN
any public or private place III winch any apparatus
was employed to record bets or wagers on tTias OF
speed or endurance OF man or peas. Dougas
Levien r. in support Of the motion, declared that
bookmaking had never been defined in the law,
and that there was therefore, no reason why th ne
or should not now be continued. similar
iniunctions had been granted in the case of the
American jockey Club, and had attcrward been
continued. BooIlnaking had VIGOROUSLY been
allowed throughout tie State, and had even been
countenauctd and projected by the police, II was
n most valuable right, and If the bookmakcrS had
been intcrfcred with ut the Madison Square Garden
these men would have been prevented from
exercising worthy calling, to ihfr lrIepII
arabic DAMAGE. The statute prohibited pool
selling but was silent on the question OF
bookmakng, which came into vogue atier
the passing of the act. In regard to tue clrc9m-
stance that the motion made re uTnable after
the match was over, Mr. Levicn said That The Cor
porafion Counsel had been informed on the first
day If the match that TIE motion could he argued
on that dav If so desired However the re urn day
was of no consequence. The only question was
whether boOkmaking was illegal or not. In ms
opinion il legal, and was only device TO enaOl9
men 70 make private wagcrs Mr.: Lacomhe admired
that he had been informed that he could argue the
motion on the first day of the match and thus pre-
vent the hookmang If it was illegal; hut n ana nc"
stale why he had neglected to take ADVANTAGE Oh
the offer made to him. He only said that as the or,
der was made rcturnahle after the match, he WaLea
until the return day. Justice Lawrence reserved his
decision
The trial Of the suit brought by the American
jockey Club in which the same question Is In
volved was yesterday set down for March 20
The Police Commissioners last fall asked CoIpo-
ration Counsel Whitney for an opinion regarding
the liability of the American Jockey Club to prose
cutiOn in the criminal courts for statements made
bv members Of the club in suits brought against the
Board Of Police by the club. recent rrpy
from Mr.. Whitney states that the luluncilohs
obtained by the club, restraining the Board OF
Police from Interference with boOkmaklng nave
been sent 10 referee for the purpose OF taking ties,
timony and that a decision in the case Is expected
before the meeting of the club III June. Mr.. Whit
ncy also SAYS: 1.-THE question whether the owners
and managers of the jerome Park race course are
liable to criminal prosecution, ana can
be convicted and punished. under tn" provisions OF
Chaptcr IFS of the laws of 1877. involves number
of questions of fact which am unable to determine
and also questions of law which only be settled
by the decisions of the courts" lie says IN CON
ctusiOn that there is nothing to prevent proceedings
before the Grand Jury, and he has transmitted tn
necessary papers to the DiStUCt-AttOmey. The
Police Board yesterday ordered the opinion to De
urintpd