The sun., 1894-05-29
HORSE RACING NO LOTTERY.
JUSTICE shTNoR DECLAREs DFYER'S
ARREST UNW1RRANTED.

Ne Chsses II ths Broohiya Jockey Ciub's
Rsee-Ds Lney Toid to Taks His Moral
Constderaiions to the Ckurekss Oacs
HacinE was Illegal AVID LOTTERIES Legai.
Justice Gsynor rendered q decision Tester-
day In the case OF Philip Dwyer, President OF
the Brooklyn Jockey Club. dscharRinR the de-
fendant whose arrest he declares was unwar-
ranted. The decision controverts the conten-
tlon OF Peter De Lacy that Mr. Dwyer was con-
ductinR lottery at the Gravesend track ard
following the favorable decision OF the Gem
eral Term will, in spite Of De Lacy's lnten-
tlon to appeal. tend to stlll further relieve the
anxiety Of the racing fraternity.
The decision says;
The defendant lie accused OF contrivlng
proposing. and maintaining lottery. crime
defined In section 325 Of the Penal Code. The
undisputed facts are as follows The defendant
is the President OF the Brooklyn Jockey Club
an association formed under the laws OF this
state for the incorporation OF associations for
improving the breed OF horses. and located In
the city OF Brooklrn where its grounds are.
Acting for the association the defendant adj
Vertised and organized n horse race to he run
on the associations grounds on May 10.
1894. The race was to he open to all
thoroughbred horses thu zee years old and up-
ward: but in order to run. horses had to he
entered on the associations books An entry
fee OF $3.50 was charged part OF which was to
be remitted in the case OF horses Withdrawn
before the race. The race was to be for
stake OF S25, 900. OF which S1S, 600 was to go to
the winner. $1,000 to the second horse. and
1000 to the third. This stake was to be made
up By the association adding to the total OF
the entry moneys sum sufficient for that
purpose. This is what the com mplainant calls
lottery. There Is no foundation for his con-
tentlon. 1t Ia not lottery either in common
speech or within legal definition. A lottery de-
pends on lot or chance, such as the casting
Of lots. the throwing Of dice, or the turn
ing OF Wheel In the scheme OF this race.
horse owners 10 not pay a sum to win larger
sum By lot or chance. but in order to enter into
which the STAKE depends. Win the mater as
Q debatable moral question l have nothing to
minister ihe laws s as nnd the them. 'h The c COM S
platnant is free to urge the mora considera:
religious societies or wherever he may get
hearing. with n view Of elevating the moral
tons q the public to his STANDARD out q which
to- make the law as he seems to want 1t.
Ca There can be be no M question ,S az to what lot
utes concerning lotteries constitute from an
early begin ming distinct line OF legislation.
The fret statute concerning lotteries was the
s1lonial one IN, Of IL prohibited under pen
msst Alter II. indepraIence. ma namely 10
1888. similar act. more stringent and penal.
was passed; ass It forbade private lptteries and
ssse @ ao c 1921 Y T thers were mans
less less than forts:,onr NJ Of which became acts. t.
for the establishment and management OF
these acts show. money was raised for opening
and imnroving great roads, tor improving the
o ss Of H.aR and Rri ;6a Tx Fs
teries were favorite means Of raising money
for educational purposes; and the title Anact
ature.' did not look strange thon. though It
does now. In 1911 a lottery act for that object
regulated seminaries OF learning are OF im-
nense importance to every country. and tend.
6y % the H 9 science nnd the
Union College was endowed by mean. Of a
teries and the elevation OF the one by means
Of the other. continued until tho adoption ot
provision that no lottery shall hereafter be au-
,horlaed In ii th, t state and this Prohi6ition
sa6seaueut revision and amend ments Of
that instrument. The debate over i in
Of 1871 !.
part and Parcel of the legal literature
q lotteries in mi. state. No one after recur:
in tho prohibition. The entire debate was
sRcs to Lotteries % then HnS eondscted ' BY sstf tho
State prohihi by statute to private indiyid-
the prohibition on the ground that Lotteries
wers the best mean. Tor the state, to get
money for revenue irom the purses OF proud |
against lotteries. another forbidijnG horse !
No ons there ever thought OF a horse race FOR /
q stake being u lottery. and no such suGgeS- |
When the Cor stitution Of iS5I went inio eiisct.
ample penal laws against private lotteries |
seen. The lottery laws us sonstituied ID distinct
system, with its own distinct literature
snd ..,s Rs. an% II. !" now Ss time
OF the penal statutes againse racing horses |
fol, stakes against betting on such race.
The first penal statnte concernng horSs
races was passed in 1902: 1t declared among |
or stake a public nuisance, and prsserit cd |
penalties against any one taking part therein
'G bs o. Ssfb sp fes
for all subsequent LEGISLATION on the subject.
was first adopted as late as 1871, Thus
here existed two distinct lines Of legisla-
systems OF statutes, tho one on lotteries.
md the other on betting and gaming. no one
tss 6Re stsss IN
ere Ated and covered by those OF the other.
That was left until now; but there is no foun-
"iTo continue the parallel. in the first gem
rral revision of the statutes OF this State.
namely in the cod iheatiOn known as the Re-
Iised avs OF 1878, We find these two systems
separately revised and placed In separate
cha ptsrs, And from thence they come. still
their separate identities. into the
next Rlutory revision and codlhcation, |
namely, the Revised Statutes OF 1890 whers
hey were placed in separate articles. the one
under the heading Of 'hAtilinR and Lotteries
,Id the other under that OF betting aud
iaming'; and. 10 bring the parallel down 20
he present time. so they remained until the
1ur renal laws into one scientific statute
"a led the Penal Code. whore we find the two
subjects still distinctly separated in different
chapters, the one headed Lotteries and the