Stearns v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: BRISCOE, J.
• Citation: 32 A. 282,81 Md. 341
• Parties: STEARNS v. STATE (two cases).
• Decision Date: 18 June 1895

32 A. 282
81 Md. 341

STEARNS
v.
STATE (two cases).

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 18, 1895.

Appeal and error from circuit court, Anne Arundel county.

William Stearns was convicted of gambling on horse races, and appeals and brings error. Reversed.

Argued before ROBINSON, BRYAN, McSHERRY, FOWLER, ROBERTS, BOYD, and BRISCOE, JJ.

Robert Moss, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Poe and Ed. C. Gantt, for the State.

BRISCOE, J. The appellant was tried and convicted in the circuit court for Anne Arundel county, under a criminal Information filed by the state's attorney for that county for unlawfully gambling, contrary to Act 1894, c. 232. The information contains five counts. The first charges the appellant with unlawfully gambling on the result of a certain trotting race or running race on the Sheepshead Bay race track, in the state of New York; second, with unlawfully making books and pools on the result of a certain trotting race or running race of horses on the same race track; third, with unlawfully keeping in Anne Arundel county a certain place, to wit, a house, for the purpose of making or selling therein books or pools, or betting therein on the result of a certain trotting race or running race, on the same race track; fourth, for using a certain place there, to wit, a house, for the purposes aforesaid; and, fifth, unlawfully did knowingly suffer such house to be used for the purposes aforesaid. To these counts a general demurrer was Interposed, which was overruled by the court. The appellant then waived his right to plead over, was convicted, and from the judgment so entered against him this appeal has been taken. The main grounds of error assigned and relied upon by the appellant are: (1) Be cause the information omits to negative the exception contained in the proviso of the statute; (2) because the information did not allege the kind of race upon which the book or pool was sold, or bet made, but charged the

32 A. 283

same in the alternative as being a trotting or running race, without specifically alleging the one or the other; and (3) because of duplicity, in that each count charges several distinct offenses.

In support of the first objection it is contended that the information is defective because all the counts omit to negative the exception contained in the statute (Act 1894, c. 232), which provides that nothing in this section shall render it unlawful for any person to make a pool or a book, or to bet within the grounds of any agricultural association, or upon any horse race which shall be held within the same grounds, within a limited period. But this objection we are of opinion cannot be sustained. The averment in each of the five counts of the information distinctly sets forth that the offense was committed in Anne Arundel county, while the race was at Sheepshead Bay race track in the state...