The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-02-26
THE. l. FREED.
Court OF Appeals Holds n warrants
We're Defective.


ALBANY. Feb 2S.-The Court Of APP
peals to-day reversed the judgment
and ordered the ~relators discharged
in the case Of the People ex rel. The.
Allen. Charles Bennett, william Leads.
Arthur Moore. William Campbell and Robert
Allen. sppellants, va. the Warden Of the
City Prison Of New York City. The
men were arrested on April 0, 1901.
at 50 Sixth avenue. New York city. on
the charge Of violating section ISL OF the
Penal Code in conducting a pooiroom.
The case came up on appeal from a de-
cision of tho Appellate Division, First De-
partment. affirming an order Of the Special
Term, which dismissed a writ OF habeas
corpus obtained by the defendants after
their commitment TO the City Prison OF
New York city.
The West Side Club, which Allen conducted,
was on the second floor OF the premises,
the first floor being occupied by Allen him
self. The evidence upon which the men
were arrested was obtained by Albert l..
Wooley. who was accompanied 10 the club
house by a negro bellboy employed in the
Astor House. both of whom bet and lost.
At the argument II was contended by the
attorneys for the defendants that the writ
Of habeas corpus should have been granted.
as they were not liable TO be punished under
section ISL Of the Penal Code for the acts
which they are charged with committing,
but were only liable 10 be sued for a penalty
In a civil action at the instance OF a loser
of the bets which are alleged to have been
made by them.
IL was further contended that section
35l Of the Penal Code was in conflict with
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-
atftttttnn IF tho InifRd StltRS. IN that II
established two different p~unishments for
the same offence.
The prevailing opinion of the court is
written by Justice O'Brien. who says OF
the Anti-Poolroom law:
II IL ouite useless to enssr upon a discussion
with respect either to the Constitutionality
or the legal obstruction OF this statute until
We know. what particular act has been com
mitted which Is claimed TO constitute a viola
ton The record before US. properly speak
ing. presents but one question. and that Is IN
IespeSt to the aulhority OF an The dei ies as1s,, 5as
in custody We think that the warrant OF
commitment, on. it, face. u so defective that
II cannot be held to warrant the detention or
imprisonment Of the ~relator From the
earliest times a warrant has been required
TO contain . statement Of The crime win
The difficulty Of the process in this, case IL
that II does not state any crime whatever
II states il that they are charged with violating
q certain section Of the Penal Code This
section has been analysed and IL is claimed
that II contains fifteen different acts which
may be offences against n Hence II Is i'm
possible. in the absence Of any statements OF
the particular act nth which the REALTORS
were charged. to know whether they have
been charged with eaything amounting to a
crime We think, therefore that the com
init was void and that the demurrer to
the return was well taken and should have
been sustained =
Judge GRAY dissents from the decision
given by the court. and in a brief opinion
holds that the commitment was in proper
legal form and sufficient to hold the REALTORS
The statute under which they were COM
mitted. he holds. was directed against
pool selling and ~bookmaking. The Office
Of n commitment is not TO furnish informa-
ton or a detailed statement Of circumstances
under which the REALTORS are charged TO
rave offended against the statutes. The
REALTORS did not bring up this question.