The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-08
BLOW 10 p0OLROOM INJUNCTION.


10 university SOcfab tiub.
'Poolrooms which have managed to obtain
injunctions in the Supreme Court restraint
ing the police from entering the premises
or interfering with the occupants, unless
armed with warrants, got a shock yesterday
when the Appellate, Division handed down
a sweeping decision denounCing such in
functions where the police car present
any proof that the place actually is used as a
poolroom.
The decision was in the case OF John
Devlin, who, az president Of the University
Social Club, at % East Eighth street, got
an Injunction from Justice Gaynor in
BROOKLYN on December 20, 1905, restraining
the Police COMMISSIONER, Acting Inspector
Hogan and Capt Hodgins from interfering
with the club OF its members.
An appeal was taken from Justice Gay
nor's order. but owing to the change in
police administration and for other reasons.
one Of them being that Justice Gaynor
was assigned to the Appellate Division, 1t
was not pressed and has never been argued.
In April last the venue Of the action was
cham ed to this county, and in August a
motion was made TO vacate the injunction
On this motion the police submitted several
afidavits showing that the place was belng
run as a poolroom, to which no reply was
made bv Devlin and his counsel, they rely
ing on Justice Gaynor's injunction. The
motion to yacate was denied by Justice
MacLean and then an appeal was taken
from this decision to the Appellate Division.
Justice Laughlin scores the police for their
inactivity in prosecuting the appeal from
the original order and for the delay in
every step Of the proceedings. He savs
that in an ordinary case the court would
be justified in refusing to hear an appeal,
but as a matter Of public interest is at issue
the court deems it its duty TO decide the
case on the merits.
Justice Laughlin remarks on the COM
pleteness of the afidavits which the police
prepared on the motion to vscate the in
| junction. and saws that if such papers had
been submitted on the original application
to Justice Gavnor it is irconceivable that
an injunction would have been granted
and that if it had been granted it would
certainly have been promptly set aside on
anneal. The affidavits show that the place
was running a. a poolroom before the in
junction was obtained and has been running
az such ever since. Justice Laughlln adds;
II must be assumed that the injunction
order Was granted upon the theory that the
plaintiffs were not only violating the law
bur that there was no reasonable ground TO
Justify the police in believing that they were
violating it. OF course. the court did not
intend TO protect the plaintiffs from being
raided by the police should they change
their lawful occupancy OF the premises into
an unlawful use. Although We may not now
question collaterally the facts upon when
the court acted. we may act upon the new
facts, arising subsequent to the granting OF
| the Injunction order.
The plaintiffs have abused the process of
the court by using the Injunction order to
shield them from detection and punishment
in conducting an unlawful business. BY con-
cealing the true facts they deceived and mis-
led the court into granting an Injunction.
under the protection OF which they have
continued to conduct a poolroom. On the
facts disclosed the inference is fairly de-
ducible that they applied for the injunction
in bad faith. and instead of obtaining it 10 pro-
tect them in the enjoyment OF their constitu-
| tiopaI rights, as the court was led to believe,
thev obtained IL to enable them to continue
to violate the law without detection or inter
ference by the officers clothed with the duty
of enforcing the law. On the disclosure of
such facts the court not only has the power.
but il Ia its duty. TO vacate the order in toto.
Justice Patterson and Clarke concur with
Justice Laughlin, but Justices lngraham
and Scott 20 even further in a short opinion
written by the former. Justice 1ngraham
SAYS that the Devlin case illustrates tbs
result OF granting injunctions which will
permit the plaintiff and his agents TO commit
crimes on the premises with impunity.
The police, he says. are powerless TO get
evidence on which 10 apply for Il warrant.
and he does not believe that a court Of
eouity has the power or jurisdiction 10
entertain applications for such injunctions
II is said that there are sixty or seventy
il not more, such places throughout the city
which are protected by injunctions.