The evening world., 1894-05-22
RA.
ives POOL LAW
IS ALL RIGHT.
Declared Constitutional by
the General Term Of the
Supreme Court,
SETBACK FOR Mr.. De LACY.
Hummel, However, Says the Case
Now Before Justice Gaynor
Will Be Pressed.
COURT OF APPEALS NEXT.
The Whole Question Will Have Il
Go to That Tribunal for
Final Settlement.
SETBACK FOR Mr.. De LACY.
COURT OF APPEALS NEXT.

The decision of the General Term of
the Supreme Court yesterday in the
Reilly-Gray case that the Ives Pool law
Is constitutional will be received with
delight by racing men. The opinion Is
written by Judge Merwin. the Court
sitting at Utica.
The case was that OF Thomas d.
Reilly. respondent, against Milton C.
Gray, appellant. Reilly bought 5000
worth of pools at the Saratoga race
track. and when he lost. demanded his
money back. This was refused and an
action was brought before Judge Nc
Lehman to recover. on the ground that
the law under which the pools were sold
was unconstitutional.
A demurrer was interposed. but Judge
McLennan held that Reilly was entitled
to recover on the grounds set forth. The
case was appealed to the General Term.
The decision of Judge Merwin is ex-
haustiye and quotes many authorities
lie defines bets and lotteries, goes over
the legal history and then says.
~ seems TO me very clear that 1t
was not the Intent OF the trainers OF the
constitution, either of 1876 or 1921. in the
use of the word lottery to include in IL
me subject Of betting. as then pro-
subjects upon the statute book and in
the public mind. and II the design had
been 70 Y both they would have been
named. 1t Is not enough to say that
both involved to some extent the same
kind Of evil. 1t may be difficult to pre-
cisely define the difference between the
i Elliott II "a Ha N,1 be said 81 e i gss} People VS. !,
betting there Is an opportunity for the
exercise OF reason and Judgment, while
IN lottery there Is no such opportunity.
1t may be said that betting Is not a
distribution of property. but an agree
ment to pay the winner certain sums
IN a certain contingency. or that the
are deposited as stakes. But be the
distinction what 1t may. 1t is very
clear from the state OF the statutory
laws In 1886 as we'll as in 1921, that bet
ting upon. a horse race was not then
understood to be a lottery.
,Ihat being so. we must assume that
term lottery. as used in the Constitu-
ton. The same rule must apply to the
Pool-selling complained of, as 1t must
be classed with betting, and is a de-
line. 1t follows. therefore, that the
constitutional prohibition against lot
teTies wy Sees not aPPlyn;rm who :, NJ
Lacy's counsel in the cases against the
race tracks. says he is not much dis
turbed by the decision Of the General
I understand It," he said to an
Ing. Justice Merwin. in his opinion, did
not touch upon the constitutionality OF
from Mr.. Miles, who Is counsel for the
plaintin In the case on which the deci-
ssbinaat S %ss ,rsnd Ses In Which he sayss
some informality In the complaint. 1t
was some trihing. thing. / believe. In
which the plaintiff stated that he lost
his money at races without specifying
what kind OF races. or something simi-
lar
shall pursue.
respect the decision Of the upper district
taken before the Court OF Appeals.
Court Of Appeals rensder a SnaI Hs dee,s iIns
In the matter, for the question has been
knocked about in the lower courts too
long"
One feature Of the case decided by the
General Term OF the Supreme Court
that has perhaps been lost sight OF, ia
that the Reilly-Gray suit Is a fake"
one Reilly, and Gray are said to be
partners in lobbying at Albany, and the
story among Legislators Is that the rae
ing associations have been Shaken
down" regularly by a certain Albany
clique.
The racing associations failed to toe
the mark a. the p eS Rsn I'm one year,
| anu BOON hlNtI TX INtAl -'Idl sui made
its appearance. Bookmakers and racing
men know that neither Reilly nor GRAY
was a poolseller or a bookmaker at Sar-
atoEa.
Jere Weinberg. one Of the counsel for
the brooklyn Jockey Club, said that the
decision would not AFFECT the Dwyer case
to me benefit OF his client. Mr.. Dwyer.
He said In a short time the General
Term OF the Second Department would
furnish a like opinion, which would
| a ffarf this locality 10 n con SiHAra hla nv
tept.
counsel. is in Philadelphia. and could
not be seen.
District-Attorney Ridgway. said that
he knew OF the case which has just
been decided by the Utica General Term.
soon. He said that when. the De Lacy
pwyer case 10 argued before Justice
Gaynor on Thursday Judge Merwin's
decision will Be used. and undoubtedly