Court Opinion

ID: 9716462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:40:31.035724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:45.765504
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Ervin, J.:
This was a gambling establishment set up for the playing of dice or “craps” for money. It was conducted *191jointly by three persons, namely, Robert F. Connelly, Joseph Sergio and John Bolger. Each man had a separate task and each depended on the others in the joint enterprise. Connelly was the only person supplying the monies and was the “operator” of the game. The monies found in his pockets undoubtedly were monies held on hand for use in the game. In the lower court’s opinion it is stated: “When Connelly was searched $100 was found in one pocket, together with a check for $147.00, endorsed in blank by one Arthur Bruno, who had apparently been a player. In Connelly’s pants pocket was found $357, and in another pants pocket $752.” The stakes that day were large and the amount on the table at the time of the raid totalled $1,180.50. The reserve for the game needed by the house was also large.
It is difficult for the writer of this opinion to believe that Connelly was simply carrying this money on his person for personal use. It is reasonable to suppose that the defendant Connelly had cashed Arthur Bruno’s check and that Arthur Bruno was using the cash in this game. It is also a reasonable conclusion that Connelly would have cashed the check of any other participant in the game if requested to do so. The money which he had in his pockets was available and actually used for a reserve account to be drawn upon by the house as needed in the game. The defendant Connelly was actually at the table where the game was being conducted and was the operator. Ordinary people do not carry such sums of money in so many pockets. This money was at the table for use in the game if and when needed. I do not believe that the money, had been reduced to exclusive possession and ownership by Connelly.
Our courts have been too zealous to protect the tainted money of professional gamblers. It is high time *192we reverse this trend and when one of these individuals is caught in the toils of the law he should be made to pay dearly in order to offset in some small degree the huge sums of money that the public is obliged to expend in order to catch, try, convict and incarcerate such person.
It seems to me that it would be a fair limitation of the present rule to require the forfeiture of all monies on the person of the operator of an illegal gambling operation present at such operation.
I would reverse and direct the lower court to forfeit all of the monies found on the person of the defendant Connelly.