Irving v. Britton

The cause of action admitted by stipulation of the parties is a transaction in poolselling and bookmaking on a horserace; and if such poolselling and bookmaking be illegal, the plaintiff is barred of recovery by the immemorial and salutary maxim, that ex turjpi causa, non orit/wr actio. Gray v. Hook, 4 N. Y. 449 , 455; Hull v. Ruggles, 56 id. 424.

By sections 351 and 352 of the Penal Code, poolselling and bookmaking on a horse race are denounced as crimes and punished by fine and imprisonment. But plaintiff contends that the poolselling and bookmaking exhibited in the case are authorized by the act of 1887, commonly called the Ives Pool Bill, and, if so, then beyond question the action is well brought.

That the effect of the Ives bill, if a valid enactment, is to .legalize such poolselling, is inevitable upon the provisions of the statute, and is settled by authoritative adjudication. Brennan v. Brighton Beach Racing Association, 56 Hun, 188 ; Bishop Written Laws, § 104a.

By incorporating the interdict of lotteries in the Constitution and associating it with the fundamental guarantees of life, liberty and property, the people of New York signalize, by the most emphatic manifestation, their sense of the-enormity of the evil they so seek to suppress. That evil consists in the temptation and facilities afforded by the lottery for the indulgence of the passion of gambling, an indulgence,, by all experience, as inimical to. the, well-being of the state as-of the individual. Gambling is the mischief against which the prohibition of the Constitution is leveled, and it is “ the-office of the judge to make such construction as will suppress-the mischief and advance the remedy, and to suppress all evasions for the continuance of the mischief.” Magdalen College Case, 6 Coke, 125-134; Wilkinson v. Gill, 74 N. Y. 63 , 67.

The language of the Constitution is generic, not specific not one species of lottery, but all lotteries áre proscribed. What, then, in the sense of this provision of the fundamental law, is a lottery ?

In the jurisprudence of New York, at least, the import of the term is not open to doubt or dispute, for its definition is established as well by legislation as by the adjudication of' the courts. “A lottery is a scheme for the distribution of' property by chance among persons who have paid or agreed to pay a valuable consideration for the chance, whether called. a lottery, raffle or gift ‘enterprise, or by some other name.” Penal Code, § 323; People v. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137 . “ Where-a pecuniary consideration is paid, and it is to be determined. by lot or chance, according to some scheme held out to the public, what and how much he who pays the money is to-

In Hull v. Ruggles, 56 N. Y. 424 , it was so held of a scheme for selling packages of candy, in some of which were tickets entitling to a prize and in others not. So, in Negley v. Devlin, 12 Abb. (N. S.) 210, of a ticket entitling to admission to a concert, “ and to whatever gift might be awarded to its number.” So, in Wilkinson v. Gill, 74 N. Y. 63 , of “ any game or device of chance in the nature of a lottery,” the chief judge saying, that “ the courts have uniformly looked beyond the mere form or device of the transaction and sought out and suppressed the substance itself.”

Equally illustrative of the principle of a lottery are the cases wherein the transaction was adjudged not to be a lottery. Thus, in People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389 , 402, the scheme was held to be no lottery because not involving “ the slightest element of chance.” Similarly, in Kohn v. Koehler, 96 N. Y. 362 , 368, the scheme was declared not a lottery, because the property “ was not raffled for or distributed by lot or chance.”

From all the cases there are collected as the constituent elements of a lottery, namely : First, an expedient held out to the public, which, secondly, for a pecuniary consideration, offers the possibility and promise of a gain, not the product of the outlay, but contingent merely upon a designated chance event. As the name imports, the lot or chance is the essential property of the unlawful enterprise, and the allurement to the public the incident that aggravates its mischievous quality. Being a species of gambling, so extensive in its influence and so fatal in its effect, the people, by provision in the organic law of government, forbid its presence or operation within the limits of the state.

The method of poolselling, found by the trial court, is as

That the event of a race is a contingency dependent upon chance is a self-evident proposition. 1 Edm. Stat. at Large, 614, § 8. Indeed, were the result susceptible of infallible anticipation, betting on a horse race would be as senseless and futile as upon the rising of the sun or the succession of the seasons. It is the element of chance and the uncertainty of the event alone that stimulate and support the wagers of the competing betters. True, fraud may make the result a foregone conclusion; but, then, fraud is a circumstance in the calculation of chances by those not in the swindle; and fraud “of itself would expose the transaction, though legal, to the condemnation of the law.

The decision of the learned trial judge upon the legality of poolselling appears to have been affected by the impression that the Ives bill determines it to be “ in the line of public welfare.” And yet that very act denounces poolselling, at any other place or time than on a race course and race day, as a felony, and punishes it by confinement in' the state prison. How the same thing can be a legal and laudable pastime at Sheepshead on a race day, and still be an infamous offense at all other times and at all other places, we own our inability to understand. The legislature may be criticised for inconsistency, but is not amenable to the malediction imprecated upon “ them that call evil good.”

Hot by principle only, but by authority as well, we are sustained in the conclusion that poolselling is a lottery. In State v. Lovell, 10 Vroom, 458 , the point was expressly adjudicated by a tribunal eminent for learning and ability; and at a Special Term of our own Supreme Court the same result was reached by Mr. Justice McLennan in an argument of convincing cogency. Reilly v. Gray, unreported. See McLanahan v. Mott, 73 Hun, 131 ; Horner v. United States, 147 U. S. 449 ; United States v. Zeisler, 30 Fed. Rep. 499 ; State v. Clarke, 33 N. H. 329 ; Tollett v. Thomas, L. R. (6 Q. B.) 514; United States v. Wallis, 58 Fed. Rep. 942 .

The conclusion is that the statute, chapter 479, Laws 1887, in so far as it purports to authorize poolselling, is repugnant to the prohibition of lotteries in section 10, article 1 of the Constitution, and is void and of no effect.

Whether the act be equally inoperative to legalize bookmaking is a question presented and argued by counsel, but which requires no decision, since, in any. event, the judgment must be reversed. The consideration for the note in suit was partly an interest in the pool and partly a bet with a bookmaker, but how much of either is not apparent. The case, then, is of a contract avoided by partial illegality in an entire .and indivisible consideration. Saratoga County Bank, etc., v. King, 44 N. Y. 87 .

We should not forbear to remark, however, that as the act of 1887 does not purport to validate bookmaking, but only exempts it from- the operation of sections 351, 352 of the Penal Code, the illegality of it is obvious and inevitable from the provisions of the Revised Statutes against betting and gaming. 1 Edm. Stat. at Large, 614, § 8.

The specific criminality of the transaction may be effaced, but it remains unlawful, and all contracts implicated with it are void by the express terms of the statute.

The judgment should be reversed and judgment directed for the defendant, dismissing the complaint upon the merits, with the costs of this appeal and of the court below.

Daly, Ch. J., concurs.

Were I agreed with my brethren that the so-called “ Ives Pool Law ” (Chap. 479, Laws 1887) purports to legalize poolselling, I should unhesitatingly concur that the act contravenes the constitutional interdiction of the authorization of lotteries by the legislature of this State. Const. 1821, art. VII, § 11 ; Const. 1846, art. 1, § 10. That a pool

The facts in this case are all admitted, and it is with the conclusions of law that we are concerned. These facts are, substantially, that the consideration for the note in suit rested upon the result of gaming transactions, pools formed as a method for betting upon the results of horse races; that the races were held under the auspices of a duly incorporated association for improving the breed of horses, and were run upon days legalized for such purposes by the act alluded to ; that these pools were formed at such times and at the places where the races took place ; in fact, that the transactions in question came within the provisions of the act in its essential particulars. The sole question presented is whether, in view of these facts, payment of the note in suit may or may not be enforced in law.

The “Ives Pool Law” (Chap. 479, Laws 1887) provides that races may be conducted upon any race track of an incorporated association for not more than thirty days in each year; that sections 351 and 352 of the Penal Code shall not apply to such tracks during the number of days during which races are permitted; that racing and poolselling shall be confined to the tracks where the races take place and the days of such races. The effect, however, of these provisions is merely to remove the penal inhibition against the public placing and recording of bets, as contained in sections 351 and 352 of the Penal Code, under certain conditions and restrictions. The act, in effect, declares that the sections of the Penal Code shall

Familiar analogies to the principle governing this case are too numerous to call for mention. The “ debt of honor ” of popular acceptance does not derive its quality from a criminal inception of the obligation, but from the civil impossibility of its enforcement. The card player may not infringe a penal law in his successful prosecution of a fair game, but with his recovery of the stakes the courts will not be concerned.

To hold that the “ Ives Pool Law,” by the force of its provisions regulating the time and place for the selling of pools

The “ Ives Pool Law ” relates, as above1 shown, to the penal aspect of the acts in question, and the repeal of the statute which takes away the civil remedies for the enforcement of a gaming debt would be an unauthorized, rather than a necessary result in solving its meaning. Matter of Curser, 89 N. Y. 401 . Upon a reasonable construction, therefore, both these statutes may be given them proper effect and inharmony in no way results. People v. Palmer, 52 N. Y. 83 ; People v. Crissey, 91 id. 616.

The case of Brennan v. Brighton Beach Association, 56 Hun, 188 , has not been overlooked, but I am unable to follow the ruling there made, after careful consideration such as the high character of the court announcing the decision calls for.

With reference to any contention that the “ Ives Pool Law ” is in contravention of the constitutional interdiction of the authorization, by the legislature, of lotteries, or the sale of lottery tickets, it is to be observed that every presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of legislative enactments, and. every act of the legislature is to be sustained rather than defeated, unless the. language employed plainly precludes every reasonable construction other than that it was intended by the act to infract the organic law. People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553 . It is not the province of the courts to nullify the legislative will only because a particular law may be of vicious

The constitutional interdiction against lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, does not require the legislature to prescribe punitory redress for the conduct of lotteries or sale of lottery tickets. That matter, therefore, rested in legislative discretion. The suspension or repeal, or partial repeal, therefore, of existing penal provisions did not contravene any provision of the Constitution, while the suspension or repeal and the remaining penal provisions were generally applicable to every part of the state.

My conclusion is that upon the admitted facts the recovery below was unauthorized, and that the judgments of the General and Trial Terms of the court below should be reversed and judgment be- directed for the defendant for dismissal of the complaint upon the merits, with the costs of this appeal and of the court below.