Arrieta v. Morrissey
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from an order made at a special term, denying a motion to make tlie complaint more definite and certain, under section 160 of the Code of Procedure. The complaint contained two counts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order made at a special term, denying a motion to make tlie complaint more definite and certain, under section 160 of the Code of Procedure. The complaint contained two counts. In the first, it was alleged that during the months of August and September, 1863, the defendant, John Morrissey, kept a gambling establishment at Saratoga Springs, and that during such times the plaintiff, Pablo de Arrieta, at such establishment, made certain wagers and bets, which were, made to depend upon a game of lot or chance, commonly called “ faro,” which game of dot or chance, was under the…
1Opinion of the CourtCardozo, J.
It is impossible to say positively, upon the complaint, as drawn, whether the plaintiff bases his complaint upon § 9 or § 14 of the statute against betting and gaming (2 Rev. Stat. 4th ed., 72).
*446The counsel for the respondent says in his points':—“ The dis- “ tinction between §§ 8 and 9 and 14 is, that where a person “ bets on a race or on a game, which is exclusively a game of “ lot or chance, or in other words, plays the game, and the other “ party only bets, such betting is within sections 8 and 9. Of .“this class are ‘faro,’ ‘roulette,’ and ‘.three-carded monte,” “ whereas the games…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Langworthy v. BroomleyNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- McKeon v. CahertyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1828
- Moran v. MorrisseyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1864
- Clark v. FarleyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1854