New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-10-12
BETTING LAW ARGUED
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Racing Men Say Agneyc-Hart Stat.
utes Are Unconstitutional

Albany. Oct. u-An attack was made rpar ~,
constitutIonsIity Of the AgnAV-FIart anrraoaf,..,
gambling laws before the Court OF Appeals so.s,~
when arguments we're heard the question -
whether oral betting constituted bookmakins
John p Stanchheld and Joseph Auzrhs.s
counsel for Orlando Jones and Solomon Iiebts-.
stein, who were indlcted on A charge OF bookbss
ing and later discharged from custody BY orss-
OF an inferior court reserved the right % ,1-sa =,
the proper time their objections "a the consf,u
tionality Of the new laws. saying This auss,io-
Viii be fully raised in other litigation which in a..
time will reach the Court OF Appeals"
Robert II. Elder. Assistant District Attorusv 40
Kings County. took exception 20 the statement ts,
he commended the mere act OF betting VAS er,r.
but argued that the oral laying and publisbuz
Of odds constituted booknaking
Messrs stanchheld and Auerbach argued IA.
the only effect Of the laws vas 70 provide
uniform penalty fer the recording and registry -
bets wherever made. Mr.. stanchaeld conssusss
that the Information against Jones and Lichr,r
stein only charged them with making an orFus--
bet between individuals. and Tie courts have Ass
thar such transaction IL noc crime
Mr. Elder in his brief said:
Il is not necessary that bet should BE- msas.
70 be engaged in. The bookmakinE has s0iely N
do with the arrangement % the odds ana tsas-
publication for the purpose Of getting osts H.,
absolutely impossible that there should b ssv
iesSon Of odd s1ho"' some sort OF odds and pu
It is the circumstance that odds are laid an
the basis OF betting that constitutes the b6osmsr
ing and distinguishes this style OF gambling from
seen laying odds on a hOrserace. racecourss
for example. 10 various people under circum-
stances that show that he IS irving % zaf hss ~
the basis Of those odds. this is the strongest si
his mind anal anal hat aS H he 99 ] T Of 2ds
~ is not necessary that his odds should Be rus-
or IN any other way.
Counsel for Jones and Iichtenstetn arzua5 IA,
the contention of Mr.. Elder that Section 3sI Of ~
penal law renders criminal the mere act OF bsr1,
Is an attempt 70 obtain by judicial decision Iszs-
latlon which the legislature when passing the a.
called Agnew-Hart anti-racetrack samblinv laws
expressly rejected II was said that the propozsi
legislation originally provided that The making o-
recording bet a racecourse was A crims
but that these bills were Withdrawn by their Own
advocates and substitute bills introduced and
passed designed 10 apply uniform penalty n
the recording and registry of bets wherever mad.
The brief continues:
Under the construction OF the District 4ttorus-
the man VINO is in the habit OF betting nor y
S p s 9Ss on the result OF an afternoons game
me neld or the friend who from time to TIM
stakes a dinner on the result of some passing
chance has for years been guilty of felony
No prosecution. however. OF such a Character vas
ever seriously brought In this state and hence
or section 30l OF the penal law has been baszs On
an error, and all the states prosecuting offers
nave been grossly lax in their duties. or else he
CoIStIuCtloh Whlch some prosecuting officers are
now urging. with what one might NOT irfprousry
characterize as undue zeal in connection with rac
LhF Is error, and the uniform opinion IT the stare
Tor the last twelve years has not been mistaken
1t was also said that the information agaus:
Jones and IIChtenstein only showed the m4Ts
making Of offers n bet. and in ons nsrsncs an
acceptance OF one OF these offers The allegation
that these offers constituted hookus king il vas
argued is without legal force and eject.