State Of N.J. v. Clark

• Citation: 61 A.2d 237,137 N.J.L. 614
• Decision Date: 03 September 1948
• Docket Number: No. 27.,27.
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Respondent, v. Austin CLARK, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

137 N.J.L. 614

61 A.2d 237

STATE of New Jersey, Respondent,

v.Austin CLARK, Appellant.

No. 27.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 3, 1948.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court.

In prosecution for maintaining a gambling house, charge that it was enough if practice was conducted on a solitary occasion was proper in view of whole case and entire charge which required showing that premises were kept with intent that people might come there to gamble or make bets. N.J.S.A. 2:135-3.

Under statute providing that any person who shall “habitually” or “otherwise”, engage in pool selling or book making or keep a place to which persons may resort for engaging in such practices or for gambling in any form shall be guilty of a misdemeanor the words “habitually” and “otherwise” are used to signify that the enumerated acts are misdemeanors even if not done habitually. N.J.S.A. 2:135-3.

Under statute providing that any person who shall “habitually or otherwise” engage in pool selling or book making or shall keep a place to which persons may resort for engaging in any such practices or for gambling in any form shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, the words “habitually or otherwise” relate to gambling in any form. N.J.S.A. 2:135-3.

Evidence that at time of raid by police, 10 or 15 men were gambling with dice at specially prepared table in room maintained by defendant sustained conviction of maintaining gambling house. N.J.S.A. 2:135-3.

In prosecution for maintaining a gambling house, charge that it was not necessary to show habitual or long continued operation was proper. N.J.S.A. 2:135-3.

Intent is an essential ingredient of crime of maintaining a gambling house and is an ultimate aim of proof under indictment. N.J.S.A. 2:135-3.

Samuel P. Orlando and Carl Kisselman, both of Camden, for appellant.

Lewis P. Scott, of Atlantic City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Case in the Supreme Court, 137 N.J.L. 10, 57 A.2d 537.

For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, Justices BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, COLIE, WACHENFELD, EASTWOOD, and JACOBS, and Judges WELLS, DILL, FREUND, McLEAN, and SCHETTINO-13.

For reversal: None.