Atterberry v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atterberry v. State

61 S.E. 296, 4 Ga. App. 336, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 289

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 7, 1908·No. 1101·Published

Opinion

Powell, J.

Though a single act of gaming, without more, will not constitute the house in which it occurs a gaming-house, yet where the owner, for a consideration paid him, invites or permits other persons to use his house, though on only a single occasion, for the purpose of gambling, he is guilty of a violation of that portion of § 398 of the Penal Code which makes it a misdemeanor if any person “shall in any house, place or room, occupied by him, permit persons, with his knowledge, to come together and play for money or any other valuable thing' at any game or device for the hazarding of money or other thing of value.” Bell v. State, 92 Ga. 49 (18 S. E. 186). Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

Though a single act of gaming, without more, will not constitute the house in which it occurs a gaming-house, yet where the owner, for a consideration paid him, invites or permits other persons to use his house, though on only a single occasion, for the purpose of gambling, he is guilty of a violation of that portion of § 398 of the Penal Code which makes it a misdemeanor if any person “shall in any house, place or room, occupied by him, permit persons, with his knowledge, to come together and play for money or any other valuable thing' at any game or device for the hazarding of money or other thing of value.” Bell v. State, 92 Ga. 49 (18 S. E. 186). Judgment affirmed.

Atterberry v. State, 61 S.E. 296, 4 Ga. App. 336, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 289 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

61 S.E. 296 (Atterberry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related