McClean v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1887 |
| Parties | MCCLEAN v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
In error from supreme court.
W. H. Vredenburgh, for plaintiff in error.
C. Haight and W. Swartz, for defendant in error.
RUNTON, Ch. The plaintiff in error was indicted for maintaining a public nuisance. The form of the indictment was the ordinary one for keeping a disorderly house, and he was convicted thereon. The alleged offense was the carrying on by him, upon the grounds of the Monmouth Park Association, (a society for horse-racing in the county of Monmouth,) during the racing season (in July, August, and September) of 1885, from day to day, the business of "book-making" or betting upon horse-races to take place upon the race-course of that association there. He carried on the business in a box or booth, within the covered inclosure of the association, under what is called the "grandstand." He was authorized by the association to carry on the business there, and paid a rent or fee to them for the privilege. The race-course and the box or booth were places of public resort, and were frequented during the racing season by great numbers of persons who were invited by McClean to his box or booth to bet upon the races. There were a number of these boxes in the same place occupied by other persons, who carried on there the same business. The defendant thus kept a place of public resort for the purpose of betting upon the result of horse-races.
Under the fifty-sixth section of the act for the punishment of crimes, (Revision, 237,) betting upon horse-races was a criminal offense. While the supplement to that act passed in 1880 (P. L. 1880, p. 195) so amended that section as to repeal the provision making such betting a misdemeanor, it did not repeal or affect the provision of the act to prevent gaming, (Revision, 458,) which declared all wagers, bets, or stakes made to depend upon any race to be unlawful. The place kept by McClean was kept in order that the public might resort thereto, and engage in the unlawful practice of betting upon horse-races, and such practices were habitually carried on there. Any place of public resort in which illegal practices are habitually carried on is a public nuisance, and a person who keeps such a place is guilty of an indictable misdemeanor. State v. Williams, 30 N. J. Law, 102. The keeping of a common gaming-house is indictable at the common law as being injurious to the public morals. The mere fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State
...A. (N. S.) 394, 121 Am. St. Rep. 277, 13 Ann. Cas. 450; 20 R. C. L. 404 (23); Thrower v. State, 117 Ga. 753, 45 S.E. 126; McClean v. State, 49 N. J. Law, 471, 9 A. 681; Bollinger v. Com., 98 Ky. 574, 35 S.W. 553. also, the Statute of Anne, 9 Anne, chap. 14, adopted in this state as part of ......
-
State v. W. U. Tel. Co.
...constitutes a disorderly house at common law.' See Haring v. State, 51 N.J.L. 386, 17 A. 1079 (Sup.Ct.1889); McClean v. State, 49 N.J.L. 471, 9 A. 681 (E. & A.1887). We think the State proved a disorderly house as alleged in the indictment and that the testimony, much of it not even denied,......
-
Gail D., Matter of
...... He is the president and his son is the vice president of a family business; they enjoy a very close relationship. The State contends that the testimony of the two boys and their grandfather are necessary to describe the actions of John D. before and after his wife's death, ......
-
Valdez v. State Ex Rel. Farrior
...... L.R.A. (N.S.) 899, 118 Am.St.Rep. 29, 11 Ann.Cas. 277;. People v. Weithoff, 51 Mich. 203, 16 N.W. 442, 47. Am.Rep. 557; Mullen v. Moseey, 13 Idaho 457, 90 P. 986, 13 Ann.Cas. 450, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 394, 121 Am.St.Rep. 277; 20 R.C.L. 404(23); Thrower v. State, 117 Ga. 753, 45 S.E. 126; McClean v. State, 49 N.J.L. 471, 9. A. 681;. [194 So. 392] . Bollinger v. Com., 98 Ky. 574, 35 S.W. 553. See,. also, the Statute of Anne, 9 Anne, chap. 14, adopted in this. state as part of the common law of England; Braxton v. Pye, 2 Wils. 309; Woolf v. Hamilton, 2 Q.B. 337; Hyams v. King Stuart, ......