In re Brown (1909) · DecisionDepot

In re Brown

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Dec 2, 1909 No. Crim. No. 1574Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to commit the petitioner for trial for violating Penal Code section 337a by receiving money to hold as a wager on a horse race.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a commitment for trial for violating Penal Code section 337a.
Whether Penal Code section 337a is a valid law.

Disposition. Denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was evidence sufficiently shown, for the purpose of commitment for trial, that petitioner received money from another person to hold the same as a bet or wager on a proposed horse race.”

“We do not see why this case does not fall within this inhibition, nor do we see any reason to doubt the validity of the law.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Receiving Monet for Betting Purposes.—Section 337a of the Penal Code, making it a crime for one to receive any money, bet or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being bet or wagered by or for any other person, upon the result of any trial or contest of speed between men or beasts, is valid.

THE COURT. There was evidence sufficiently shown, for the purpose of commitment for trial, that petitioner received money from another person to hold the same as a bet or wager on a proposed horse race. This was substantially the charge-made by the complaint.

Section 337a of the Penal Code in terms makes it a crime for one to receive any money, bet or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being bet or wagered by or for any other person, upon the result of any trial or contest of speed between men or beasts.

We do not see why this case does not fall within this inhibition, nor do we see any reason to doubt the validity of the law.

The application for a writ is denied.

In re Brown

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief