City of Portland v. Duntley
| Citation | 203 P.2d 640,185 Or. 365 |
| Parties | CITY OF PORTLAND <I>v.</I> DUNTLEY |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1949 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
3. Under statute authorizing appeal to supreme court from decision of circuit court on appeal from municipal court order declaring ordinance invalid, validity of order was the only matter which supreme court could consider. Laws 1947, c. 462.
Gaming — Nuisance statute — Bookmaking
4. Prior to Oregon State Racing Act, bookmaking was offense against law of state as a public nuisance within the embrace of the Nuisance Statute. O.C.L.A. §§ 23-927, 91-901 et seq.
Gaming — "Bookmaking" — "Bookmaker"
5. "Bookmaking" is a species of betting on races, and is the business of receiving and accepting bets or wagers on the result of races, usually after quoting odds to prospective betters and having them write out slips, and a "bookmaker" is a professional betting man. O.C.L.A. § 91-901 et seq.
See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, for other judicial constructions and definitions of "Bookmaker" and "Bookmaking".
Gaming — "Pari mutuel system"
6. The wagering system termed in the Oregon State Racing Act "mutual" or "mutuel" is what is commonly known as "pari mutuel" system, under which odds are determined by the quantum of the bets placed on the several entries and those whose wagers are placed on the winning horse share the total stake, less fixed percentage to track management, in proportion to their respective contributions or wagers, and it is a species of pool selling. O.C.L.A. § 9-901 et seq.
See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, for other judicial constructions and definitions of "Pari Mutuel".
Criminal law — Judicial knowledge — "Other animal racing"
7. The supreme court judicially knows, that "other animal racing" referred to in Oregon State Racing Act establishing system of state controlled and regulated horse racing on which pari mutuel betting is permitted means dog racing. O.C.L.A. § 91-901.
See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, for other judicial constructions and definitions of "Other Animal Racing".
Criminal law — Common knowledge — Horse racing without betting — Not profitable
8. It is a matter of common knowledge that horse racing without betting will never be a successful or profitable enterprise on a large scale.
Statutes — Legislative intent sought from the whole of the statute
9. It is a rule of statutory interpretation, having paramount importance, that courts seek legislative intent from the whole of the statute and not from isolated words and phrases, divorced from their context, and from spirit and purpose of enactment.
Statutes — History of a measure — Aid to interpretation — Language doubtful
10. The history of a measure during its enactment may be resorted to as an aid to interpretation where language of doubtful import is found in statute.
Statutes — Bill introduced and read twice and referred to committee and abandoned — Insufficient to disclose legislative intent in second bill
11. A hastily drawn and inadequate original bill, which was never considered by either house of legislative assembly or by any committee, and which was simply introduced and read twice and referred to committee and thereafter abandoned, was insufficient to disclose legislative intent in enacting second bill which became Oregon State Racing Act. O.C.L.A. § 91-901 et seq.
Constitutional law — Courts do not create public policy — Legislature
12. Courts do not create public policy but must ascertain public policy from that of laws passed by legislature.
Statutes — Interpretive regulations by commission — Weight in determining operation of Act
13. Interpretive regulations by commission charged with enforcement of an Act carry great weight in determining operation of the Act.
Statutes — Title of Act — Purpose of ascertaining meaning of statute
14. The title may not be used to contradict clear provisions in body of Act, but where it is necessary to construe ambiguous language, the title of the Act, being a part of the statute, can be looked to for purpose of ascertaining meaning of statute.
Statutes — Repeal by implication
15. Repeals of statutes by implication are not favored.
Statutes — Construction on Washington statute by Washington courts — Weight by Oregon Supreme Court under certain conditions
16. Construction placed on Washington State Racing Act by Washington courts would be given great weight by Oregon Supreme Court in construing Oregon state racing Act, where either the one Act served as a model for the other, or the same persons had a hand in drafting both Acts, and the Acts were enacted by both legislatures at approximately same time, and titles and many provisions of both Acts were in practically identical language, O.C.L.A. § 91-901 et seq.; Rem.Rev.Stat. Wash. § 8312.
Gaming — Municipal corporations — Oregon State Racing Act — Establishes certain controls and regulations — Pari mutuel betting — Prohibitions and bans
17. The Oregon State Racing Act establishes system of state controlled and regulated horse racing on which pari mutuel betting is permitted at the race track or meet when conducted by licensees under supervision of Oregon racing commission, but Act does not permit pari mutuel betting at other places and absolutely bans bookmaking, pool selling and circulation of handbooks, which remain unlawful under the Nuisance Act, so that City of Portland could validly enact ordinance prohibiting bookmaking establishments or selling of pools on animal races. O.C.L.A. §§ 23-927, 91-901 et seq., 91-910.
See 38 C.J.S., Gaming, § 85
165 A.L.R., 838
24 Am. Jur. 412
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
WALTER L. TOOZE, JAMES R. BAIN and ASHBY C. DICKSON, Judges.
Virgil H. Langtry, of Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Alexander G. Brown, Philip J. Roth and John F. Reynolds, of Portland.
Edwin D. Hicks and Thomas H. Tongue III, of Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Hicks, Davis & Tongue, of Portland, and Ralph E. Moody, of Salem.
Before LUSK, Chief Justice, and BRAND, BELT, ROSSMAN, KELLY and BAILEY, Justices.
Action by the City of Portland against A.J. Duntley, also known as Alonzo J. Duntley, "Lonnie" Duntley, and Joseph A. Duntley, for allegedly conducting a bookmaking establishment on horse races in violation of ordinance. From an order of the circuit court affirming the judgment of the municipal court dismissing the action, the plaintiff appeals.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
On this appeal the validity of an ordinance of the City of Portland, denouncing as unlawful bookmaking establishments, selling pools, and gambling upon animal races, is drawn in question as in conflict with state law. The action was commenced in the Municipal Court for the City of Portland by the filing of a complaint charging the defendant with violation of the ordinance by conducting a bookmaking establishment upon horse races. The defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the court sustained, and the action was dismissed. The City appealed to the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, where the case was heard by a bench of three judges upon a stipulation that the sole question to be presented "was whether said ordinance is void or unconstitutional as in conflict with the provisions and spirit of the Oregon State Racing Act, section 91-901 ff., O.C.L.A., and with the public policy of the State of Oregon established thereby". The court rendered an opinion holding the ordinance void, and entered an order affirming the judgment of the municipal court and dismissing the appeal. From that order the City has taken this appeal as authorized by Ch. 462, Oregon Laws, 1947.
The ordinance in question (§ 16-1122 of the Police Code of the City of Portland, Ordinance No. 76339, passed December 4, 1941) is as follows:
The complaint charges violation of the ordinance in these words:
"The above named defendant on April 13, 1948, within the corporate limits of the said City of Portland did wilfully and unlawfully at the Santa Anita Turf Exchange Club, 429 S.W. Park Avenue, conduct a bookmaking establishment upon animal races, to-wit, horse races, conducted without the corporate limits of the City of Portland; that said bookmaking establishment did not, at said time and place, conduct parimutuel betting at the track or at racing meets conducted under the supervision of the Oregon Racing Commission."
1. The demurrer filed by the defendant was based upon grounds both that the ordinance is invalid and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Klamath Falls v. Winters
...before us, and can exercise only the power expressly conferred upon it by statute.' To the same effect, see City of Portland v. Duntley, 185 Or. 365, 371, 203 P.2d 640 (1949), and State ex rel. Venn v. Reid, 207 Or. 617, 630-31, 298 P.2d 990 (1956). 4 The question to be decided is whether a......
-
State v. Buck
......Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With Charles E. Raymond on the brief were John B. McCourt, Dist. ...Portland Ry., Light & Power Co., 80 Or. 271, 306, 156 P. 1058. . In City of Portland v. Duntley, 185 Or. 365, 390, 203 P.2d 640, 651, we said: . 'It is our holding, based ......
-
City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement Bd.
...law unless that intention is apparent. See, e. g., Terry v. City of Portland, 204 Or. 478, 269 P.2d 544 (1954); City of Portland v. Duntley, 185 Or. 365, 203 P.2d 640 (1949); City of Coos Bay v. Aerie No. 538, 179 Or. 83, 170 P.2d 389 (1946); Lyons v. City of Portland, 115 Or. 533, 235 P. 6......
-
Swift & Co. v. Peterson
...rel. Peterson v. Woodruff, 179 Or. 640, 173 P.2d 961. In so doing we may include the title in our consideration. City of Portland v. Duntley, 185 Or. 365, 386, 203 P.2d 640; State ex rel. Bylander v. Hoss, 143 Or. 383, 386, 22 P.2d It is from a combination and application of all these rules......