Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 22 February 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 236,88 Tenn. 566
• Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

13 S.W. 236

88 Tenn. 566

BROWN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 22, 1890

Error to criminal court, Davidson county; G. S. RIDLEY, Judge.

Indictment against Henry C. Brown for gambling.

S. Hill and J. M. Quarles, for plaintiff in error.

G. W Pickle, Atty. Gen., for the State.

FOLKES J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted for gambling, in that he "did bet and put at hazard, upon a certain horse-race run upon a track not authorized by the laws of Tennessee money of the value," etc. The case was tried by consent before the judge of the criminal court without a jury, who found the defendant guilty as charged, and imposed a fine of $50. Motion in arrest and for new trial being made and overruled, the defendant has appealed in error. The record discloses the following facts: The defendant had taken out a license under the act of 1889, c. 130, p. 261, entitled "An act to provide revenue for the state of Tennessee and the counties thereof," wherein is imposed a tax or privilege license in the following language "Book-makers on horse-races, each agent, firm, or person, corporation, or firms, in each county, each, per annum, or any shorter time, $25." That within six months preceding the finding of the indictment the defendant had acted as book-maker in making bets on a horse-race to be, and that was thereafter, run on a track outside the state of Tennessee. The transaction is thus described in the bill of exceptions: "There were four horses to be run in the race. The defendant made and offered at public outcry the following pools on each horse, to-wit: $5 on a certain horse named, that it would not win. This pool was bought by a by-stander for $5, making in this pool $10. $6.66 2/3 for $3.33 1/3 that another certain horse named would not win. This pool was bought by a by-stander for $3.33 1/3, making in this pool $10. $7.50 for $2.50 that another certain named horse would not win. This pool was bought by a by-stander for $2.50, making in this pool $10. $8 for $2 that another certain named horse would not win. This pool was bought by a by-stander for $2, making $10 in this pool. On the succeeding day the race was run, and the party who had bought the pool on the winning horse was entitled to and did receive from the defendant the $10 in the pool purchased by him. The party only who purchased the pool on the winning horse was entitled to the money in his pool. If the horse lost, the seller of the pool, the defendant, would and did retain the entire pool; the money in each pool constituting the stake, the winner taking the whole stake or pool. This making, offering, and selling of the pools was all conducted in a place or room called a 'pool-room,' where pools are sold on horse-races. The defendant kept books or memoranda of each bid made and accepted, as hereinbefore stated."

The defendant had also taken out a license under the same act of 1889, wherein, under the head of "Pool-Selling," it is enacted that "each person, company, firm, or corporation, or agent, engaged in selling pools upon any running, trotting, or pacing race in this or any other state therein, each, per annum, or shorter time, $500."

From the argument of counsel at the bar we are led to infer that the transaction shown in this cause is not now sought to be justified under the last-mentioned license. If we are mistaken in this, it is sufficient to say that the defendant can find no refuge here, for...