Lescallett v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 20 April 1893 |
| Citation | 89 Va. 878,17 S.E. 546 |
| Parties | LESCALLETT. v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Title of Acts—Gaming—Keeping Betting House.
1. Acts 1891-92, p. 626. entitled "An act to prevent and punish gambling, and the making, writing, or selling of books or pools or mutuals on the result of any trotting race of horses, or race of any kind, or on any election, or any contest of any kind, or game of baseball, " has for its general object the suppression of certain kinds of betting or gambling; and the fact that the body of the act makes it an offense, not only to bet in the prohibited modes, but also to keep a house for the purpose of such betting therein, does not render the act void as embracing more than one object, which was not expressed in the title.
2. Where an offer to bet is telegraphed by a person in this state to another in a foreign state, who accepts by telegraph, the betting is done, not within the state, but within the foreign state, because the offer, being accepted there, takes effect there.
3. One who keeps a house wherein he posts the names of horses running on a race track in another state, and who takes orders from customers to bet money on such races, which he transmits by telegraph to the race track, and which are accepted there, does not violate Acts 1891-92, p. 626, § 1, which makes it an offense to keep any house for the purpose of "betting therein, " since the betting is done at the race track.
Error to hustings court of Richmond; S. B. Witt, Judge.
Defendant Lescallett was convicted of keeping a house for betting purposes, and brings error. Reversed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by LEWIS, P.:
Writ of error to a judgment of the hustings court of the city of Richmond, rendered June 10, 1892, in a prosecution for analleged violation of the act of February 25, 181)2, to prevent and punish betting, etc. Acts 1891-92, p. 626. The title of the act is as follows: "An act to prevent and punish betting, gambling, and the making, writing, or selling of hooks or pools or mutuals on the result of any trotting race of horses, or race of any kind, or on any election, or any contest of any kind, or game of base ball." The first section of the act makes it unlawful for any person or persons or association of persons to make, write, or sell books, pools, or mutuals on the result of any trotting race or running race of horses, or race of any kind, or any baseball match, or any election or contest of any kind, " and also makes it unlawful "to establish, keep, lease, rent, or use, or knowingly suffer to be used or occupied, any house, building, or portion of a building, vessel, or place, on land or water, for the purpose of making, writing, or selling therein any book or pool or mutual, or of otherwise betting or gambling, or of permitting gambling or betting, therein or thereon, upon the result of any trotting race or running race of horses, or race of any kind, or any baseball match, or on any election or contest of any kind." The second section makes any violation of the act punishable by fine and imprisonment In Jail. The indictment contains two counts. The first charges that the accused did unlawfully make, write,, and sell books, pools, and mutuals on the result of a certain running and trotting race of horses on the Gutten-burg racetrack; and the charge in the second count is that he did unlawfully establish, keep, etc., a certain house, in the city of Richmond, for the purpose of making, writing, and selling therein books, pools, and mutuals, and of otherwise betting and gambling, and of permitting gambling and betting therein, on the result of certain trotting and running races of horses at the Guttenburg race track. There was a demurrer to the indictment, and to each count thereof, which was overruled, whereupon issue was joined on the plea of not guilty, and the jury, after hearing the evidence, found the defendant not guilty under the first count, but guilty under the second. The defendant thereupon moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, which motion the court overruled, and entered judgment in conformity with the verdict.
L. O. Wendenburg and Staples & Mun-ford, for plaintiff in error.
R. Taylor Scott, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
LEWIS, P., (after stating the facts.) It is contended, first, that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the second count of the indictment. The ground of this contention is that the object of the latter portion of the first section of the statute, upon which the first count is founded, in regard to keeping a house for betting or permitting betting therein, is not expressed in or germane to the title of the act, and is therefore Invalid under the provision of the constitution that "no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title." But this is a mistaken view. The act has but one general object, and that is the suppression of certain kinds of betting or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co.
......243;. Sullivan v. Bank, 70 P. 163; Minzershemer v. Doolittle, 54 A. 611; Littleton v. Berlin Mills. Co., 58 A. Rep. 877; Lescallett v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 878; Scales v. State, 81. S.W. 949; Pearce v. Rice, 142 U.S. 28, 40, 35 L.Ed. 925, 930, 12 S.Ct. 130, 135; Pickering ......
-
Scales v. State
......199, 42 S. W. 291, 38 L. R. A. 719; Ryan v. M., K. & T., 65 Tex. 16, 57 Am. Rep. 589; Seiders v. Life Ass'n, 93 Tex. 199, 54 S. W. 753; Lescallett v. Com. (Va.) 17 S. E. 546; Garbracht v. Com., 96 Pa. 449, 42 Am. Rep. 550; Minn. Oil Co. v. Collier Lead Co., 4 Dill. 431, Fed. Cas. No. 9,635; ......
-
Enoch v. Commonwealth
...arbitrary discretion of the judges and not by the express authority of the law. Harris Com'th, 81 Va. 240, 59 Am.Rep. 666; Lascallett Com'th, 89 Va. 878, 17 S.E. 546; United States Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 5 L.Ed. 37." See also Withers Com'th, 109 Va. 837, 65 S.E. 14 In Black on Interpretat......
-
State v. Brown, 649.
...his mount does not confer immunity upon those who wager on its result. We have carefully examined the case of Lescallet v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 878, 17 S.E. 546, extensively quoted in appellants' brief. We are unable to accept the reasoning in that case as sound, or follow its conclusions. ......