RACING AND BETTING. 367 



A note given in the State in consideration of money loaned 

 for making books on races run in another State where the 

 laws authorize book-making is given for money loaned for 

 gambling purposes and is void.^"* In New Jersey, also, un- 

 der an act making unlawful all wagers on any race, it is im- 

 material that the race is to be run in another State.^"^ 



In California, it was held that an ordinance prohibiting the 

 selling of pools on horse-races, except within the enclosure 

 of the track, is a valid police regulation and not void because 

 its incidental efifect may be to confer special privileges or bene- 

 fits upon those owning or controlling race-courses by giving 

 them the exclusive right of carrying on the business or of 

 selling to others the privilege of pool-selling.^*** While in 

 Missouri, a statute prohibiting book-making except under 

 similar circumstances was held to violate the constitutional 

 prohibition against passing any local or special law granting 

 to any corporation or individual any special or exclusive right, 

 privilege or immunity.^**^ 



A contract to pay a certain sum of money as a forfeit for 

 declining to run a horse-race was held valid in Texas.^"^ 



In Ontario, the race-courses of incorporated associations 

 are reserved by the Criminal Code as places where bets may 

 be made during the actual progress of a race meeting without 

 the bettors being subject to a penalty. An agreement for 

 the sale of betting and gaming privileges at a race meeting 

 by an unincorporated association, who are the lessees of an 

 incorporated association, the owners of the race-course, is not 

 illegal.3"» 



In England, to make out the statutory ofifense of keeping 



'" Spies V. Rosenstock, 87 Md. 14. 

 '°° Kensler v. Jennings (N. J.), 41 Atl. Rep. 91S. 



As to an indictment for transmitting bets on races by telephone, see 

 State V. Spear (N. J.), 42 id. 840. 

 ""' Ex parte Tuttle, 91 Cal. 589. 



" State V. Walsh, 136 Mo. 400; State v. Bliler, 138 id. 139. 

 ™ Wheeler v. Friend, 22 Tex. 683. 

 " Stratford Turf Assn. v. Fitch, 28 Ont. S79- 



