State v. Maranz, A--63

• Decision Date: 24 March 1952
• Docket Number: No. A--63,A--63
• Citation: 87 A.2d 543,18 N.J.Super. 478
• Parties: STATE v. MARANZ.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 478

18 N.J.Super. 478

87 A.2d 543

STATE v. MARANZ.

No. A--63.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued March 17, 1952.

Decided March 24, 1952.

James L. McKenna, Newark, argued the cause for appellant.

Richard J. Congleton, Essex County Prosecutor, Newark, argued the cause for respondent (C. William Caruso, Newark, on the brief).

Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JACOBS, S.J.A.D.

The defendant was indicted on the charge that he willfully and unlawfully conducted the practice of bookmaking on the results of sporting contests, to wit, basketball games and prize fights, in violation of R.S. 2:135--3, N.J.S.A. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced and has duly appealed. In support of his appeal he does not question the sufficiency of the evidence against him but raises the single contention that although bookmaking on horse races is an admittedly indictable offense under R.S. 2:135--3, N.J.S.A. (State v. Morano, 134 N.J.L. 295, 47 A.2d 419 (E. & A.1946)), bookmaking on other contests, such as basketball games and prize fights, is not.

In 1893 the Legislature declared that any one who, within the exterior enclosure of the grounds of any race course, practiced betting on horse races, commonly known as bookmaking, was guilty of a misdemeanor. See L.1893, c. 18. During the following year this enactment was repealed (L.1894, c. 12) and was replaced by a statute (L.1894, c. 101) which dealt more generally with gambling. In its first section it declared that if any person shall buy or sell what is commonly known as a pool or interest therein, or make or take 'what is commonly known as a book, upon the running, pacing or trotting, either within or without this state, of any horse, mare or gelding,' he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In its second section it declared that if any person shall 'conduct the practices commonly known as book making and pool selling' or keep a place to which persons may resort for such practices or for betting on 'any horse race, or other race or contest' or for 'gambling in any form' he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. It may here be noted that the first section which dealt with the making or taking of 'what is commonly known as a book' was expressly restricted to books on horse races, but there was no comparable restrictive language in the second section which dealt with the practice commonly known as bookmaking. In 1897 a constitutional amendment prohibiting 'book-making or gambling of any kind' (art. IV, sec. VII, par.2) was adopted and thereafter, in L.1898, c. 235, the Legislature substantially reenacted the provisions of L.1894, c. 101 which now appear in R.S. 2:135--3, N.J.S.A.

The State and the defendant agree that the clause in R.S. 2:135--3 N.J.S.A. which deals with any person who makes or takes what is commonly known as a book upon horse races is inapplicable in the instant matter. The State contends, however, that the independent clause in R.S.2:135--3, N.J.S.A. which deals with any person who shall conduct the practice commonly known as bookmaking is applicable and that the defendant's indictment and conviction were proper thereunder. In response the defendant urges that although the pertinent statutory language is general and not expressly restricted to horse races, it should be so limited in the light of its historical antecedents, particularly L.1893, c. 18. It is true, as the defendant points out, that the 1893 enactment referred to the practice of betting on horse races 'commonly known as book-making'; however, since the Legislature there dealt only with at-the-track betting on horse races it had no occasion to refer to betting on other contests and it did not in anywise suggest that the making of betting book on contests other than horse races was not also then commonly known as bookmaking. Indeed, examination of contemporary dictionary definitions and judicial decisions adequately discloses the contrary. Cf. State v. Morano, supra, 134 N.J.L. at page 297, 47 A.2d 419; Eastwood v. Miller, (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 440; Murphy v. Board of Police, 63 How.Prac. 396 (Sup.Ct.1882). In the Morano case Justice Heher referred to early dictionary definitions which defined bookmaking as 'The act or practice of making a book on a race or other doubtful event,' and a bookmaker as 'One who makes a book on a race or other doubtful event; a professional betting man.' Similarly,...