State v. Scott
| Decision Date | 17 December 1907 |
| Citation | 68 A. 258,80 Conn. 317 |
| Parties | STATE v. SCOTT. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Reservation from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.
James B. Scott was charged with assisting in the maintenance of a place for the buying and selling pools, in violation of Gen. St. 1902, § 1359. There was a demurrer to the information, and, on the parties stipulating that final judgment should be rendered in accordance with the decision on the demurrer, the case was reserved for the advice of the Supreme Court of errors. Judgment for the state advised.
The information charges "that on the 13th day of December, 1905, at Bridgeport, in said county, James B. Scott, then of said Bridgeport, with force and arms, well knowing that a certain building, room, office, and place situated in said Bridgeport, and known as No. 37 Bank street, was a poolroom, and that on said day one James E. Burnham did keep, manage, maintain, and occupy said building, room, office, and place with apparatus, books, boards, and other devices, the exact nature and description of which is to the attorney unknown, for the purpose of making, recording, and registering certain bets and wagers, and of buying and selling pools upon the result of certain trials and contests of skill and speed of certain horses, the place of such trials and contests not being known to said attorney, did furnish to said James E. Burnham, for use in and to maintain said poolroom and building, room, office, and place, a certain apparatus known as a 'ticker,' together with telegraphic service, automatically printing on a tape, connected therewith, giving the names of certain horses, jockeys, weights, odds, and the results of said trials and contests, which said telegraphic service was convenient for and was used in, said building, room, office, and place, for the purpose of enabling said James E. Burnham to conduct, keep, and maintain the same, he, the said James E. Scott, well knowing the purposes for which said ticker and said telegraphic service was used; and so said attorney for the state says that the said James E. Scott, in manner aforesaid, with force and arms, did on said day, at said Bridgeport, knowingly assist and aid in the keeping, conducting, and maintaining of said building, room, office, and place, for the purposes aforesaid."
J. Birney Tuttle, for accused. Galen A. Carter, Asst. State's Atty., for the State.
HAMERSLEY, J. (after stating the facts as above). For more than 200 years we have treated wagering as against public policy, and playing at the games which promote wagering has been illegal. In the legislation adopted for the suppression of gaming we have uniformly treated those who promote the offense, either by furnishing a place convenient for its commission or any implement used in its commission, as more dangerous to society and deserving a much greater penalty then the persons who win or lose their money. 1 Col. Rec. pp. 527, 289; Comp. 1808, p. 360; Gen. St. 1888, §§ 2552, 2573. Section 1359 was first enacted in 1893 (Pub. Acts 1893, p. 240, c. 68), and is directed against that form of gambling known as "pool selling," including bets or wagers on the result of any trial of skill, speed, or endurance. Common forms of gambling are comparatively harmless when placed in contrast with the widespread evil of this form of pool selling, especially since the perversion of the telegraph to its uses has multiplied many fold its capacity for harm (State v. Harbourne, 70 Conn. 484, 490, 40 Atl. 179, 40 L. R. A. 607, 66 Am. St. Rep. 126), and so the act seeks to punish those who are concerned in pool selling of this kind—i. e., betting upon the results of horse races, and other trials of skill, speed, and endurance at a place with apparatus and devises convenient for this purpose—whether they are concerned as owners or possessors of the place, as assisting in maintaining the place, Its apparatus, and devises, or as betting in the pools there bought and sold, or as custodian of any apparatus of any kind used for the purpose of assisting in buying or selling any such pools, or making any such bets. Section 1387 punishes the person who bets upon any horse race by a fine not exceeding $50; but section 1359 punishes the person who through betting upon a horse race becomes concerned in buying or selling the pools therein described by a fine of not more than $500, or by imprisonment of not more than one year, or both.
The defendant is charged under the provision which punishes every person "who shall assist in keeping, managing [or] maintaining * * * any place with apparatus * * * or any device for the purpose of * * * buying or selling pools upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed or endurance of man [or] beast, * * * whether such trial * * * take place either within or 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 was rendered. It is, in substance, thus stated: "The defendant furnished, for use in, and to maintain, said poolroom and place, a certain apparatus known as a 'ticker,' together with telegraphic service automatically printing on a tape connected therewith, giving the names of certain horses, etc., and the results of said trials and contests, which said telegraphic service was convenient for and was used in said place for the purpose of maintaining the same, he, the defendant, well knowing the purposes for which said ticker and said telegraphic service was used; and so said defendant, in manner aforesaid, did knowingly assist in maintaining said place for the purposes aforesaid." The attorney has thus limited himself to the proof of a violation of the statute substantially in the manner described. The question, therefore, presented by the demurrer is this: Can the apparatus described as furnished by the defendant in connection with its use by the defendant for furnishing the telegraphic service described contribute so directly to the offense of maintaining a place with apparatus for the purpose of pool selling that the defendant can be regarded as assisting in the maintenance of such a place within the meaning of the statute? The defendant answers this question in the negative; and, in support of his contention, relies mainly upon cases which have held that keeping a place which is a common nuisance involves some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Haskins
...any persons to commit the offenses or do any act forming a part thereof, then the convictions must stand. Id.; State v. Scott, 80 Conn. 317, 322-23, 68 A. 258 (1907). To prove guilt as a principal, the state must prove each element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. To be gui......
-
State v. Foster
...State v. Thomas, 105 Conn. 757, 763, 136 A. 475 (1927); State v. Enanno, 96 Conn. 420, 425, 114 A. 386 (1921); State v. Scott, 80 Conn. 317, 322-26, 68 A. 258 (1907). Additionally, the Commission Comment to § 53a-8 indicates that there was no intention to alter substantially the pre-existin......
-
State v. Petry
...W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law § 63 (1972); 4. W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 33 (1765); and, State v. Scott, 80 Conn. 317, 68 A. 258 (1907). We will consider only principals in the first degree, aiders and abettors, and accessories before the fact in felony cases, s......
-
State v. Osman
...v. Beaulieu, 164 Conn. 620, 625, 325 A.2d 263 [1973]; State v. DiLorenzo, 138 Conn. 281, 284-85, 83 A.2d 479 [1951]; State v. Scott, 80 Conn. 317, 321, 68 A. 258 [1907]; cf. State v. Cari, 163 Conn. 174, 183-84, 303 A.2d 7 [1972]. In the event the state offers evidence to prove that the def......