36(i IMPOUNDING ; INJURIES ON HIGHWAYS, ETC. 



in another State and telegraphs orders to customers to bet 

 money thereon, which bets are accepted at the track, he does 

 not violate the statute as the betting is not done in that 

 house but where the offer to bet is accepted. 2*"' But, under 

 the act of 1896, the State has exercised its authority to forbid 

 its citizens to bet on horse-racing in another State, and this 

 right has been held not to be affected by the fact that the 

 money is to be placed in a third State.^^^ 



In Tennessee it is gaming to bet within the State on a 

 horse-race to be run in another State, where it is lawful to 

 bet on such race. The offense is consummated if the bet is 

 commenced, a fortiori if it is completed, within the State. ^^^ 

 But betting on horses is not gaming within that State if the 

 races are run and the betting made within enclosures;^"* 

 though the selling of "auction-pools" or "book-making" on 

 races to be run on unlicensed tracks in the State or upon any 

 track outside of the State has been held to be gaming.^"^ 



In North Carolina a note given in consideration of a bet 

 won on a horse-race cannot be enforced, though it was given 

 in a State in which such contracts are valid. ^"^ 



In Maryland it is unlawful to make or sell pools or bet 

 on horse-races except in the grounds of an agricultural asso- 

 ciation upon a race held within the same on the same day.^*^ 



"" Lescallett v. Com., 89 Va. 878. 



In Canada a telegraph office, through the aid of which bets are made 

 and moneys paid over to the winners, is a betting house: Reg. v. Giles, 

 26 Ont. 586; Reg. V. Osborne, 27 id. 185. 



■"' Lacey v. Palmer, 93 Va. 159. 



As to a complaint for sending money out of a State to be bet in horse 

 races, see State v. Falk, 66 Conn. 250. 



'"' Williams v. State, 92 Tenn. 275; Edward v. State, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 411. 



'" Williams v. State, supra. 



The statute is not invalid as vicious class legislation, though partial: 

 Debardelaben v. State (Tenn.), 42 S. W. Rep. 684. 



'" Palmer v. State, 88 Tenn. 553; Brown v. State, Ibid. 566. 



" Gooch V. Faucett, 122 N. C. 270. 



"" Stearns v. State, 81 Md. 341. 



The place cannot be changed nor the period of exemption extended: 

 State V. Dycer, 85 id. 246. 



