People v. Laude

7 Citing cases

  1. Longstreth v. Cook

    215 Ark. 72 (Ark. 1949)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that because the element of chance is not the dominating element controlling horse races, there is no lottery.

    He fixes the odds for his own benefit, but he may win or lose on any contract. A is a bookmaker. Enc. Britt., 14th ed., 10:11; People v. Laude, 81 Misc. 256; 143 N.Y.S. 156; 27 C.J. 981. Second โ€” Historical Background. โ€” The nature of the scheme called lottery in 1874 may now be examined.

  2. People v. Burch

    118 Cal.App.2d 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 10 times
    In People v. Burch, 118 Cal.App.2d 122 [ 257 P.2d 44], a woman said to defendant, "Give me two dollars to win on Willow Way in the first race at Hollywood Park," and defendant replied "O.K."

    [3] Under the law as it now stands the acceptance of the bet is the offense, irrespective of the gain to defendant. Defendant relies on certain decisions from other jurisdictions, such as New York v. Bennett, 113 F. 515, Murphy v. Board of Police, (N.Y.) 11 Abb. N.C. 337, People v. Laude, 81 Misc. 256 [143 N.Y.S. 156], Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14 [39 A. 268] and Board of Comrs. v. Grodecki, 21 N.J. Misc 241 [33 A.2d 115]. These cases are not here in point for the reason that they are from other jurisdictions, predicated upon statutes dissimilar to the Penal Code provisions in California and contrary to the decisions of the appellate courts of this state.

  3. Opinion of the Justices

    249 Ala. 516 (Ala. 1947)   Cited 20 times

    That it is very hazardous to guess that the bookmaking system of wagering is the same as the pari-mutuel is conclusively demonstrated by reference to the following cases which deal in varying ways with the term "bookmaking." People of State of New York v. Bennett, C.C., 113 F. 515; People on Complaint of Lennon v. Camio, 165 Misc. 134, 300 N.Y.S. 264; Murphy v. Board of Police, 11 Abb.N.C., N.Y., 337, 63 How.Prac. 396; People ex rel. Lichtenstein v. Langan, 196 N.Y. 260, 89 N.E. 921, 25 L.R.A., N.S., 479, 17 Ann.Cas. 1081; State ex inf. Hadley v. Delmar Jockey Club, 200 Mo. 34, 92 S.W. 185, 98 S.W. 539; People v. Laude, 81 Misc. 256, 143 N.Y.S. 156; Ex parte Hernan, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 343, 77 S.W. 225; People ex rel. Jones v. Langan, 132 App. Div. 393, 116 N.Y.S. 718; People ex rel. Shane v. Gittens, 78 Misc. 7, 137 N.Y.S. 670; People v. Fallon, 152 N.Y. 1, 46 N.E. 302, 37 L.R.A. 419; Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14, 39 A. 268; Ullman v. St. Louis Fair Ass'n, 167 Mo. 273, 66 S.W. 949, 56 L.R.A. 606; People v. Solomon, 174 App. Div. 144, 160 N.Y.S. 942; Board of Com'rs of City of Newark v. Grodecki, 33 A.2d 115, 21 N.J. Misc. 241; State v. Morano, 134 N.J.L. 295, 47 A.2d 419; Odle v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 288, 139 S.W.2d 595; Shillitani v. Valentine, 184 Misc. 77, 53 N.Y.S.2d 127; Armstrong Racing Publications v. Moss, 181 Misc. 966, 43 N.Y.S.2d 171; Hofferman v. Simmons, 177 Misc. 962, 32 N.Y.S.2d 244; State v. Baldinotti, 127 N.J.L. 46, 21 A.2d 291; State v. Morano, 133 N.J.L. 428, 44 A.2d 786. Although the rendering of advisory opinions by the Justices is not a judicial function and although such opinions are not conclusive or bindin

  4. Utah State Fair Ass'n v. Green

    68 Utah 251 (Utah 1926)   Cited 42 times
    In Utah State Fair Association v. Green, (1926) 68 Utah 251, 249 P.2d 1016, the court said: "It is not an element of chance as to the amount he may lose but only as to the amount he may win."

    Chapter 77, Laws of Utah, 1925, is not within the provisions of Article 6, Section 28 of the Constitution prohibiting games of chance, lotteries or gift enterprises. People v. Laude, 143 N.Y.S. 156. Chapter 77 does not infringe the Constitution: (a) Because horse racing is a game of skill.

  5. State v. Tate

    420 So. 2d 116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    People v. Gittens. Bookmaking is a specific act of gambling which consists of certain specific acts distinguishing this form of gambling from every other form of gambling. People v. Laude, 81 Misc. 256, 143 N.Y.S. 156 (N.Y.Cty.Ct. 1913). This court has held that bookmaking is a specific act of gambling.

  6. Lux v. State

    11 So. 2d 771 (Ala. Crim. App. 1943)   Cited 2 times

    As to what constitutes bookmaking, see Spies v. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14, 39 A. 268; People v. Laude, 81 Misc. 256, 143 N.Y.S. 156; State v. Oldham, 200 Mo. 538, 98 S.W. 497. No race horse book was established by the evidence. All the evidence indicated that the paraphernalia or papers found were not current but referred to some other date or time and not as of the date of the arrest.

  7. Matter of Shillitani v. Valentine

    184 Misc. 77 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1945)   Cited 2 times
    In Shillitani v. Valentine, 184 Misc. 77, 53 N.Y.S.2d 127, 131, 132, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the restoration of telephone service.

    I see no force to this claim. At common law book-making was not a crime, and while it is true that book-making is now made a crime by statute (Penal Law, ยง 986), it is only against the professional gambler that the statute is directed and not against the bettor ( People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin, 60 Misc. 306, 128 A.D. 599, appeal dismissed 194 N.Y. 556; see, also, Bamman v. Erickson, 288 N.Y. 133); the statute does not prohibit ordinary betting, even if repeated from day to day, nor is it book-making to make a series of bets in the ordinary way ( People v. Laude, 81 Misc. 256); for that reason the police attempted to level a charge against the petitioner of book-making. The fact that the receiver of a telephone message lawfully transmitted may elect to utilize it for an improper or illegal purpose does not thereby render the original lawful use of the telephone improper or illegal and hence cannot be made a basis by the telephone company for refusing to furnish service to the subscriber.