Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 23 February 1893 |
| Citation | 21 S.W. 662,92 Tenn. 275 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to criminal court, Davidson county; G. S. Ridley, Judge.
Jim Williams, Si McKay, and Walter Johnson were convicted of gaming, and bring error. Affirmed.
A. J Caldwell and Vertrees & Vertrees, for plaintiffs in error.
The Attorney General, for the State.
The three plaintiffs in error were each convicted on three separate presentments for gaming, the specific charges being unlawful betting and encouraging and promoting unlawful betting upon a horse race run in the state of Kentucky. The cases were all heard together before the judge of the criminal court of Davidson county, without the intervention of a jury, and upon an agreed statement of facts. They were each found guilty in each case, and a fine was imposed in each case of $50. All have appealed.
The substance of the agreed state of facts, so far as material to be set out, is as follows: Defendant Williams is proprietor of the Climax saloon in Nashville. Payne & Co. live in Kentucky, and their occupation and business is the placing of bets on horse races to be run at Latonia race course, in Kentucky. They have the rear room of the saloon building rented, and a wire leased from the Western Union Telegraph Company connects it will Latonia. An operator is stationed at each place. In this room there is a blackboard, on which are written the names of the horses in the different races to be run, the weight each is to carry, the jockeys who are to ride them, and the odds which the bookmakers at Latonia are laying against them. Defendants McKay and Johnson are agents of Payne & Co., and attend to their business in this rented room. They receive propositions from any one offering to bet with Payne & Co., but solicit no propositions. The propositions, when offered, are telegraphed to Payne & Co. at Latonia for acceptance or rejection. No propositions are entertained except upon actual races, and unless offered before the races come off. If Payne & Co. accept any proposition or offer to bet, they wire their Nashville agents to that effect. The Nashville agents thereupon receive the money which is offered to bet, and give to the party paying the same a ticket, which is the evidence and contains the terms of the bet. The full amount of the bet is collected by the Nashville agents, and remitted to Payne & Co. They also collect a commission for their services in forwarding the money. When the race is run at Latonia, the result is communicated by wire to the Nashville agents, and, if the Nashville party has been successful, defendants, or one of them, draws a draft on Payne & Co. at Latonia for the amount won, which the Nashville customer accepts in payment of his winnings. These drafts are collected in the usual course of trade.
The Nashville agents act alone as agents of Payne & Co., receive a salary from them for their services, but have no interest in their business. The money received by the Nashville agents is regularly sent to Payne & Co., but not by telegraph, and settlement is made with them twice a week. Defendant Williams has no interest in the business, but has been in the habit of cashing the drafts on Payne & Co. when presented at his saloon bar. He has also himself sent propositions to Payne & Co. to bet, which were accepted; and he has full knowledge of the character of the business conducted by Payne & Co. and by McKay and Johnson.
The contract made with the Western Union Telegraph Company by McKay and Johnson and Payne & Co. provides that no bet or proposition to bet in Davidson county shall be accepted in this room, but all shall be transmitted to Payne & Co. for acceptance on some track where it is lawful to bet on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Williams
...not class legislation. State v. Posey, 1 Hump. (Tenn.), 384; State v. Huff, 2 Swan (Tenn.), 280; State v. Ransome, 91 Tenn. 717; State v. Williams, 92 Tenn. 275; State Atkins, 95 Tenn. 475; State v. Mosley, 14 Ala. 390; State v. Harris, 9 Tex.App. 308. (5) After the ruling of the Supreme Co......
-
The State v. Oldham
...criminal statute to be defeated by a resort to a subterfuge. State v. Townsend, 50 Mo.App. 690; State v. Kentner, 178 Mo. 487; Williams v. State, 92 Tenn. 275; Ransome v. State, 91 Tenn. 717; State Thompson, 8 Ohio S. & C. Pl. Dec. 682; Regina v. Osborne, 27 Ontario 185; People v. Barbour, ......
-
Debardelaben v. State
... ... arbitrary and capricious. The act is not open to the ... objection urged against it in this case, nor to any other ... objection touching its validity. Impeachment of its title was ... answered in Ransome v. State, 91 Tenn. 717, 20 S.W ... 310, in which case, as well as in Williams v. State, ... 92 Tenn. 275, 21 S.W. 662, the provision herein considered ... was, without discussion of its constitutionality, treated as ... valid, and enforced against a person violating it. It can ... avail this defendant nothing upon the question of guilt to ... say that he was operating ... ...
-
State ex rel. Turner v. Drake
...slips found in his possession were merely notations of bets he was to place at the track as agent for others. In Williams v. State, 92 Tenn. 275, 21 S.W. 662 (1893), the court upheld the conviction of a professional gambler who sought to evade Tennessee's gambling laws by a complicated proc......