New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-08

pPOH1BITION OF LOTTERIES-JOHE
n BOWERS SAYS TIE TRACKS
WILL NOT RE AFFECTED.
aoc,sion of the General Term of the Court
in' Pleas that the Ives Pool law is il
and that poolseng is forbidden by the
Ego =, the State Constitution prohibiting lot
has raised the extremely interesting ques-
u.hetber there can still be racing in this
w" rs of course understood that without
".,ssrng no track can survive John NJ.
ps who as counsel for tho Coney Island,
r...,,vn and New-York Jockey clubs made an
...,s,,ye study Of the laws on racing and bet
49, declared yesterday that In his judgment
s.c,sion of this General Term would not pre-
s. tho clubs from holding their usual meetings
"a ., the usual way. But this opinion was not
"norss by all There were many who believed
A., this decision by General Term would prove
,.sous obstacle to racing this season. and that
- outcorne Of it would be visible on May 10.
.s.r the Brooklyn Jockey Club opens this years
racing.
nudge Pryor handed down the decision in the
emit n Robert G.. Irving against Joseph a. Brit
-, The suit was brought TO recover the amount
=, o note given for an interest in a pool and for
no, with a bookmaker at a hOrserace. The sui,
-r,s tried in the City Court. and Irving got a
Judgment. Brittoh appealed and the judgment
r-as reversed and the complaint dismissed upon
tho merits Judge Pryor in his opinion says:
Tho cause of action admitted by stipulation Of
nar,ies IL a transaction IN poolsellinS and DOCK,
making horse race ana II sucH po4iseIlns am, anu
hookmakng be illegal the plaintiff Is barred from
recovery by the immemorial ana salutary MAXIM
EEK turpe causa non C %r,ur 1ecare pooseDr and
Sookmakng 10 be crimes for which punis hment ana
Imprisonment are Accorded Inc Snect OF ,ne IVES
upon the provisions OF the statute. and is settled
nv authoritative adjudication in Brennan VS..
Brighton Beach Racing ASSOCIATION
THE DEFENDANTS CONTENTION.
conceapr so much. the defendant answers that
the Ives bill .s nudity. because repugnant to sec
Ton 70 article of the Constitution. which says:
,.Nor shall any lottery hereafter be authorized or
envy sale Of lottery tickets allowed within this
state" Whether within the meaning OF this pro-
bbl,jon poolselling and bookmak!ng on horseraces
bs lotteries Is the precise point for adjudication
BY incorporating the interdct OF lotteries IN the
Constitution. and associatlng II with the funda-
mental guarantees Of lfe liberty and property. the
people Of New-York sgnalise. by the most EN-
phatic manifestation their sense OF the enormity Of
the evil they seek to suppress That evil consists
IN the temptation and facilities afforded by the lot
terry for the indulgence of the passion OF gambling
an indulgence by all experience. as inimical TO
the well-belng OF the State as Of the individual
Gambling is the mischief against which the proh-
bton OF the Constitution IS levelled; and 1t Is the
office Of the Judge TO make such construction as
will suppress the mischief and advance the remedy,
and suppress all evasions Tor the coh.lnuanve
of the mischief" The language OF the Constitu-
ton Is generic, not specc; not one species OF Ol-
terry. but all lotteries are prescribed W nat then
in the sense OF this provision OF the fundaheh'al
law is lottery?
The import Of the term is not open 20 dispute or
doubt a lottery a scheme for the distribution %
property by chance among persons who have PAID
agreed e pay valuable ton , for ihe
prize, or by some other name.
WHAT A LOTTERY
Where pecunlary consideration Is paid and 1t Is
to be determined by lot chance. according 10
scheme held out to the public. what and how
much he who pays the money is to receive for II.
that Is a lottery. Thus annual distribution by
lot among the members OF an art union Of works OF
art, purchased by subscriptions Of the American
Art Union. is lottery within the meaning OF the
1t was 50 held in Hall VS.. Ruggles of a scheme
for selling packages OF candy IN some OF wnicn
So in Negley Devlin. OF ticket emitting 10
admission 10 concert and 10 whatever GIT might
be awarded 10 It's number.
Judge Pryor holds that the method Of pool
selling as testified to at length on the trial was,
when tested by either criterion. whether by the
definition Of the courts or of the statute in
every essential lottery The decision goes on:
pendent upon chance is a se.f-evdent proposition.
Were the event susceptible TO infallible anticipation
betting Il hcrserace would be as senseless ana
futile as upon The rising sun or the succession OF
uncertainty OF the event alone that stimulate ana
support the Wagers OF the competing bettors True,
but then fraud IL a circumstance in the calculation
Of chances by those not In the swndle; and fraud
o. Itself would expose the TRANSACTION though legal
10 the condemnation or the law.
ONE VIEW or THE IVES LAW.
the City Court. before whom the suit was tried,
In giving his opinion the legality Of pool
selling appears to have been affected by the
impression that the Ives bill determines pool
selling TO be Gin the line OF public welfare"
And yet" says the Judge that very act de-
nounces poolseling at any other place or time
thap on a racecourse and race day as felony,
and Furnishes It by confinement In the State
Prison How the same thing can be legal and
laudable pastime at Sheepshead on a race day.
and still be an Infamous offence at all other
times and at all other places we own in
ability to understand. The Legislature may be
criticised for inconsistency. but Is not amenable
70 The maediction imprecated upon them that
call evil good Not by principle only but by
authority as well we are sustained in the con-
cusion that poolseliing is lottery" The de-
eson says further:
The conclusion IS that the statute chapter 40 OF
me Laws OF 1887, In far as II purports to au-
saorlze poolselling is repugnant 10 the prohibition
OF lotteries in section TO- article Of the Constltu-
.uon' and whether the act be equally imperative
70 iegalize boOkmakng requires no decision; since.
IN any event the Judgment must be reversed The
ssohsderation for the note In suit was partly an
interest In the pool and partly a bet with a book
Axker, but how much OF either Is not apparent.
ihe case, then. Is OF contract avoided by par
uon
We should not forbear TO remark. however. that
= the Act of 1881 does not purpOrt TO validate
s.ssokmaklng. but only exempts It from the opera
ioas OF sections aJi-S52 Of the Penal Code the H.
sgality Of It is obvious and inevitable from the pro-
ezming
The specific criminalty OF the transaction may be
saaced. but II remains unlawful; and all contracts
a m1tncated with IL are void by the express terms
OF the statute.
THE ISSUE IN TIE SUIT.
The suit was brought by Robert G.. Irving
against Joseph A. Britton, agent for the Society
iVr the Enforcement Of the Criminal Law TO