People v. Schwartz
Before: Kerrigan
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Recording Bet on Baseball Game—Sufficiency of Information.—An information charging that, at a certain game of baseball played between competing clubs, the defendant offered to bet with the spectators or any of them at certain odds against one of the clubs, on a specified contingency, and that, upon the offer being accepted by a named spectator, and a bet made, the defendant “received and recorded said bet,” states an offense within section 337a of the Penal Code.
Id.—Construction of Information—Public Offer to Bet—Public Bet Recorded.—A fair construction of the language used in the information is that the defendant was engaged publicly in offering ■ to bet with any and all comers, and that the bet charged to have been recorded was a' bet of that character, which comes within the language and intent of the act. The charge that defendant “received and recorded said bet” is to be construed with the context and as violating that portion of the act.
Id.—Sufficiency of Evidence as to Record of Bet—Memorandum Destroyed upon Arrest—Inference by Jury.—Evidence showing in effect that at the time when the bet was made the defendant made a memorandum thereof on a piece of paper, and that when the arresting officer attempted to get this paper the defendant tore it in pieces, was sufficient to warrant the jury in inferring that the defendant recorded the bet, notwithstanding both the defendant and the person with whom he made the bet controverted the evidence. It was for the jury to weigh the evidence oh both sides, and having concluded from the acts testified to that the bet was recorded, this court has no power or inclination to interfere with the verdict.
Id.—Evidence — Business of Bookmaking — Illumination of Act Charged.—Evidence was admissible to show that during various other innings of the game the defendant was engaged in the business of bookmaking, and recording other bets of a similar character to the act charged, as illuminating the act charged, and showing the true character.
KERRIGAN, J.
The defendant was informed against by the district attorney of the city and county of San Francisco, charged with a violation of the provisions of section 337a of the Penal Code. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for the term of thirty days. This appeal is from the judgment.
In substance the information charges that at a certain game of baseball played between the San Francisco and Oakland baseball clubs, the defendant offered to bet with the spectators, or any of them, at the ratio of three and one-half to one that the San Francisco baseball club would not score in the eighth inning of said game; that John Liebold, one of the
[11]
spectators, accepted the offer, and a bet at the odds mentioned was then and there made, whereupon defendant “received and recorded said bet,” and subsequently, the San Francisco baseball club having scored in the eighth inning, the defendant paid the amount of the bet.
The first question raised by appellant is whether the facts stated in the information constitute a public offense. The information is founded upon that portion of said section 337a which reads as follows: “Every person . . . who records or registers bets or wagers, or sells pools upon the result of any trial or contest of skill ... or of any lot, chance, casualty, unknown or contingent event whatsoever ... is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail or state prison for a period of not less than thirty days or not exceeding one year.”
As just stated, it is charged that the defendant offered to bet with the spectators, or any of them, at a certain baseball game at given odds on a named contingency, and upon the offer being accepted by one of the spectators he registered or recorded the bet. We think the fair interpretation of this language is that the defendant was engaged publicly in offering to bet with any and all comers, and that the bet charged to have been recorded was a bet of that character. This character of betting, we believe, comes within the language and intent of the act. The language of the information that the defendant “received and recorded said bet” is to be construed in connection with the context; and as thus construed we have no hesitation in holding that a violation of the portion of the act quoted is charged.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)