Agricultural Soc. of Montgomery County v. State

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CONSTABLE, J.
• Citation: Agricultural Soc. of Montgomery County v. State, 130 Md. 474, 101 A. 139 (Md. 1917)
• Decision Date: 04 May 1917
• Docket Number: 20.
• Parties: AGRICULTURAL SOC. OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY v. STATE.

101 A. 139

130 Md. 474

AGRICULTURAL SOC. OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY v. STATE.

No. 20.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 4, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Edward C. Peter Hammond Urner, and Glenn H. Worthington, Judges.

The Agricultural Society of Montgomery County was found guilty of suffering its grounds to be used for the purpose of making selling, and buying books on the result of horse racing, and appeals. Affirmed.

Briscoe J., dissenting in part.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

Robert B. Peter, of Rockville, for appellant.

Albert M. Bouic, State's Atty., of Rockville, and Ogle Marbury, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Albert C. Ritchie, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the State.

CONSTABLE J.

The appellant, which conducts an annual fair in Montgomery county, was indicted by the grand jury of that county by an indictment containing two counts, the first of which charged that it on the 25th day of August, 1916, unlawfully and knowingly suffered its grounds to be used for the purpose of making, selling, and buying books and pools thereon upon the result of a running race of horses held within the said grounds on the said date. The second count charged the same offense, with the addition that the appellant was not licensed by the circuit court for Montgomery county to suffer its grounds to be used for the purpose of making, selling, and buying books and pools thereon upon a result of a running race of horses to be held thereon.

The appellant pleaded not guilty, and the case was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts. Keller v. State, 12 Md. 322, 71 Am. Dec. 596; Salfner v. State, 84 Md. 299, 35 A. 885. The court found the defendant guilty, and imposed a fine of $50 and costs, from which judgment this appeal was taken.

The statute which it is charged the appellant violated is that which was enacted by Acts 1898, c. 285, and which is now codified in Bagby's Code, vol. 3, as sections 217, 218, 219, 220, and 221 of article 27.

Section 217 is as follows:

"It shall not be lawful for any person or persons, or association of persons, or for any corporation within the state of Maryland, to bet, wage or gamble in any manner, or by any means, or to make or sell a book or pool on the result of any trotting, pacing or running race of horses or other beasts, or race, contest or contingency of any kind, or to establish, keep, rent, use or occupy, or knowingly suffer to be used, kept or rented or occupied, any house, building, vessel, grounds or place or portion of any house, building, vessel, grounds or place, on land or water, within the state of Maryland, for the purpose of betting, wagering or gambling in any manner, or by any means, or making, selling or buying books or pools therein or thereon upon the result of any race or contest or contingency, or by any means or devices whatsoever, to receive, become the depository of, record or register, or forward or purpose, or agree or pretend to forward any money, bet, wager, thing or consideration of value, to be bet, gambled or wagered in any manner, or *** device whatsoever, upon the result of any race, contest or contingency, and any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, one-half of said fine to go to the informer, and shall be subject to imprisonment in jail for not less than six months nor more than one year, or be both fined and imprisoned, in the discretion of the court."

Section 218 provides that nothing in the preceding section shall render it unlawful in any county in the state for any persons to make a pool or book, or to bet within the grounds of any agricultural association, race course, or driving park upon the result of any trotting, pacing, or running race of horses which shall be held within the said grounds, race course, or driving park upon which said persons shall make a pool or book or shall so bet upon the same day on which said race shall be held, provided the grounds be licensed by the circuit court for the county within which such grounds or tracks may be located. Section 219 provides for the application for the license and the advertisement of the application. Section 220 provides for what the application shall contain. Section 221 provides for what the license shall contain, such as the name of the grounds and the number of days and the month within which such license shall be operated, and further provides what number of days in any one year betting can be carried on, and also what months during which betting shall not be permitted, and further names certain counties to which this section shall not be applicable, including Cecil, Washington, and Anne Arundel counties. Sections 219, 220, and 221 are no longer applicable to Baltimore and Harford counties, for which, by Acts 1912, cc. 77, 132, racing commissions were created to control horse racing in those counties.

By the said agreed statement of facts it appears:

(1) That the defendant is a corporation and owns a fair ground at Rockville, in Montgomery county, upon which there is a race course.

(2) That on the 25th day of August, 1916, the defendant did knowingly suffer its said grounds to be used for the purpose of making, selling, and buying books and pools therein upon the result of a running race of horses held within the said grounds on the said 25th day of August, 1916.

(3) That the defendant is an agricultural association, and annually holds a fair for four days upon its said grounds, and that the "fair" for the year 1916 was actually being held upon its grounds on said 25th day of August, 1916, when said running race took place.

(4) That the defendant's said race course is the only race course or driving park in Montgomery county upon which horse races were to be held during the year 1916, and that the racing on this course was for only four days, and they were the days the defendant was actually holding its fair.

(5) That the defendant did not apply to the circuit court for Montgomery county for a license to suffer its grounds to be used for the making, selling, and buying books and pools thereon upon the result of horse racing in the year 1916, and that no license was issued to the defendant for that purpose in that year.

(6) That in the year 1910 the defendant made application to the circuit court for a license to permit bookmaking and pool selling upon horse racing upon its said fair grounds for four days during its fair for the year 1910, but that a license was refused by a full bench, and that the defendant has not made application for a license since said refusal; that the circuit court for Montgomery county in said year 1910 convicted a certain Arthur J. Mark of gaming and bookmaking at the fair grounds of the defendant at its annual fair held for the year 1910, and he was fined $400 and costs.

(7) It is...