Anderson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Anderson v. State

34 S.E.2d 458, 72 Ga. App. 510, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 624

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1945

Docket30833.

StatusPublished

This text of 34 S.E.2d 458 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State, 34 S.E.2d 458, 72 Ga. App. 510, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 624 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. Tlie purpose of section 26-6502 of the Code is “to suppress lotteries by making it an offense to maintain or carry on one, or to do any of the several acts entering into the conduct of such a business; and the statute was framed, doubtless, with a view' to reach all persons who might carry on, or participate in carrying on, the forbidden enterprise.” Walker v. State, 69 Ga. App. 375 (25 S. E. 2d, 587).

2. The evidence showed that a lottery, known as the “number game,” was being operated in Eulton County, Georgia, and then described how this “number game” was played. The “number game” has been fully described in Cutcliff v. State, 51 Ga. App. 40 (179 S. E. 568), Goodrum v. State, 69 Ga. App. 373 (25 S. E. 2d, 585), and other cases; and we deem it unnecessary to set out at length the evidence describing it in the instant case. The evidence further showed that the defendant was participating in the carrying on of a lottery, as charged in the accusation, in the capacity of a “pick-up man;” that when he was approached by the officers, he fled and undertook to hide the lottery tickets, which were found in his possession. Thus by acting as a pick-up man, lie was doing one of the several acts entering into the conduct of the *511 lottery business. The evidence authorized the verdict and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Decided April 17, 1945. Rehearing denied June 6, 1945. M. F. Stinchcomb, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, E. E. Andrews, solicitor-general, Durwood T. Pye, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MacIntyre, J.

1. Tlie purpose of section 26-6502 of the Code is “to suppress lotteries by making it an offense to maintain or carry on one, or to do any of the several acts entering into the conduct of such a business; and the statute was framed, doubtless, with a view' to reach all persons who might carry on, or participate in carrying on, the forbidden enterprise.” Walker v. State, 69 Ga. App. 375 (25 S. E. 2d, 587).

2. The evidence showed that a lottery, known as the “number game,” was being operated in Eulton County, Georgia, and then described how this “number game” was played. The “number game” has been fully described in Cutcliff v. State, 51 Ga. App. 40 (179 S. E. 568), Goodrum v. State, 69 Ga. App. 373 (25 S. E. 2d, 585), and other cases; and we deem it unnecessary to set out at length the evidence describing it in the instant case. The evidence further showed that the defendant was participating in the carrying on of a lottery, as charged in the accusation, in the capacity of a “pick-up man;” that when he was approached by the officers, he fled and undertook to hide the lottery tickets, which were found in his possession. Thus by acting as a pick-up man, lie was doing one of the several acts entering into the conduct of the *511 lottery business. The evidence authorized the verdict and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Decided April 17, 1945. Rehearing denied June 6, 1945. M. F. Stinchcomb, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, E. E. Andrews, solicitor-general, Durwood T. Pye, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.E.2d 458, 72 Ga. App. 510, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack