The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-11-05
SUSTAIN VIRGINIA
B00kMAK|MG Fight
VERDICT OF NORFOLK CIRCUIT
COURT UPHELD BY COURT
OF APPEALs.
PENALTY IS HEAVIER
MORRIS COBE, ONE OF THE CON-
yIcTED JAMESTOWN BooKMAK-
ERs, LOSES HIS FIGHT TO
EvADE PUNISHMENT.

The lone convicted Jamestown race
track bookmaker, who was not salts
fed with the verdict of the Mag1s-
trate's Court last April, has made his
final play and must pay heavier PEN
atty than was meted out to him In the
first instance.
The finish came yesterday when the
State Supreme Court refused writ
of error In the case of the Common
wealth versus Morris Cobe. on appeal
from the Circuit Court of Norfolk
County
Instead Of six months in jail and
500 fine. CODE faces the same jail
sentence and a $500 fine. His ten or
twelve comrades in trouble, who con-
fessed In the Magistrates Court OF
Norfolk County. got off with varying
sentences. all lighter.
The decision of the Supreme Court
yesterday was an echo from the
spectacular raid OF the Jamestown
race track last April. under orders
from Governor Stuart ana under d.
rection OF Attorney General Pollard,
when tho long standing defiance or
the State law as to gambling was
ended by the arrest and conviction OF
dozen or more bookmakers.
Cobe was tried before Justice Bragg,
OF Norfolk County, with the others.
but unlike. the Others. was not con-
tent with the sentence imposed. which
was six months In jail and 800 fine.
Accordingly he entered motion for
a new trial which was granted and on
July 20 in the Circuit Court of Nor
folk County, the jury returned the
following verdict:
Penalty Made Heavier.
I'VE, the jury, find the prisoner
guilty and fix his punishment at six
months in Jail and fine of $500"
This was getting "a raise" with a
vengeance and Cobe, through his at
torneys. carried the case before the
Supreme Court of Virginia. In the
higher court. his contention was that
the Circuit Court erred In eyerruling
his plea that the verdict be set aside
as contrary to the law and the evil
deace; thai II was also in error In
granting and refusing Instructions.
and in that improper arguments were
made BY the attorney for the Com
monwealth.
CODES attorney held that the anti
gambling laws OF Virginia are aimed
at the gambling place rather than at
the act of gambling itself and that the
defendant did not occupy" place
under the grandstand at the track In
the meaning of the Law. The tnstrpc-
lions OF the court held, however. that
In the meaning OF the law as to &C.
cupying place for gambling or
hooknaking 'it Is not necessary that
he 1.-THE defendant) should own 1t. or
have exclusive possession Of 1t, or that
he should have any control of It" and
that he might occupy" space "by
standing or IN any other way"
1t was from this construction OF
the law that the defendant appealed
and It was that construction that the
Supreme Court upheld in refusing the
writ.
Appeal From Divorce Decree.
The State Supreme Court yesterday
received an application for writ OF
error and supersedeas fled by Mrs.
Mary Ann Kelly. in appeal from the
decision OF the Circuit Court OF Alex
andria granting to Joseph A. Kelly a
decree OF divorce a mensa ct thoro.
Mrs Kelly sets forth that In 1909 sne
received a decree of separation from
her husband In the Probate Court OF
the County Of Suffolk in Massachusetts
and was awarded $35 a month for
maintenance. Her husband paid the
maintenance assessment until 1913.
when she received notice that ne had
filed against her in the Circuit Court
of Alexandria suit for divorce on
the ground of desertion. The decree
was awarded.
In asking for writs of error and
supersedeas the appellant contends
that letter written by her husba nd
after the suit was filed. asking her te
return. was allowed in evidence as was
also her refusal to return to her hus-
band after decision was delayed by
the court to allow her to do SO. Her
contention is that she was afraid to
return, as she had been badly treated
and occasionally beaten when they
had formerly lived together.