State v. Falk
| Decision Date | 28 May 1895 |
| Citation | 33 A. 913,66 Conn. 250 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. FALK. |
Appeal from court of common pleas, Fairfield county; Walsh, Judge.
Albert Falk was convicted of violation of the act of 1893, to prevent pool selling, and appeals. Affirmed.
J. C. Chamberlain and Stiles Judson, Jr., for appellant.
William B. Glover, for the State.
The defendant was prosecuted for violating the provisions of chapter 68 of the Public Acts of 1893. The information contained three counts. He was found guilty on the first and third, and not guilty on the second. There was a motion in arrest of judgment which was overruled. One fine only was imposed. The defendant appealed to this court, and has assigned numerous reasons for his appeal. If either the first or third count is a good one, then the complaint is sufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment.
We think the first count is good. It does not charge two offenses. It charges the keeping of only one place. True, it charges that the place was kept with apparatus, etc., for the purpose of recording and registering bets and wagers, and for the purpose of buying and selling pools. But as the keeping of a place for either of these purposes is forbidden by the statute, and as these purposes may both exist at the same time, with reference to the same room or place, and so become each a part in one continuous act, charging them both in connection with the keeping of the place is not duplicity. It does not charge two offenses. It points out two purposes of the keeping of one place, and proof of either purpose, or of both of them, shows that one crime has been committed. State v. Bosworth, 54 Conn. 1, 4 Atl. 248; State v. Burns, 44 Conn. 149; Barnes v. State, 20 Conn. 232; Francisco v. State, 24 N. J. Law, 30; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. § 348.
The third count charges that the defendant "was concerned in the business of transmitting money out of this state, by telegraph or other means. * * * there to be bet and placed on certain horses and horse races, * * * against the peace, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case provided." This language follows quite closely the words of the part of the statute on which the prosecution is based. This part of the statute seems to contemplate a person who is concerned in the business of transmitting the money of other persons than himself, out of this state, there to be bet. And the element in the business which makes it criminal by the statute is that the money transmitted out of the state "is there to be bet or placed on a horse race or other game." The business of transmitting money out of this state is not itself unlawful, and that is not forbidden, except when the transmitting is attended with the specified purpose. The third count undertakes to charge the defendant with being concerned with this business, and it is obviously defective unless it charges him with that ingredient of the business which alone makes it unlawful. In other words, the count is defective unless it charges that the defendant had knowledge of, or participated in, the unlawful purpose for which the money was transmitted out of the state. It seems to us that this count does not contain any such charge, and is therefore not a good count. Bearing in mind that it is the money of some other persons which the defendant is in the business of transmitting out of the state, there is nothing in the count to show that he had any knowledge of, or that he took any part in, the unlawful purpose for which the money was so transmitted. In ordinary cases it is sufficient to use the words of the statute in informations charging a statutory offense.
But there are instances to the contrary. The language of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edwards
...different offenses. In the case at bar, the defendant, as indicated, was charged only with murder in the first degree. In State v. Falk, 66 Conn. 250, 256, 33 A. 913, which involves a comparable situation, the defendant was charged in one count with one offense: 'the keeping of . . . one pl......
-
McCall v. State
... ... horse-race under such circumstances is gaming, there can be ... no doubt. 12 R.C.L., § 17; 20 Cyc., pp. 880, 881, and ... the great number of authorities cited in the note 50 to subd ... 5, at page 884. See, also, State v. Falk, ... 66 Conn. 250, 33 A. 913; Debardelaben v ... State, 99 Tenn. 649, 42 S.W. 684; Watson v ... State, 3 Ind. 123; Redman v ... State, 33 Ala. 428; State v ... Stripling, 113 Ala. 120, 36 L.R.A. 81, 21 So. 409; ... Cheesum v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 332, 44 ... Am ... ...
-
State v. Scott
...without this state." Had the information described this offense substantially in the w statute, it would have been good. State v. Falk, 66 Conn. 250, 256, 33 Atl. 913. The state's attorney, however, has included in his information a statement of the manner in which the assistance charged wa......
-
Cullen v. N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.
... ... of the railroad at the point of crossing; and, second, that, however this may be, the order was made in the exercise of the police power of the state, to remove a source of public danger, and therefore any resulting damage to private individuals is damnum absque injuria ... The ... ...