Brockett v. State
125 S.E. 513, 33 Ga. App. 57, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 718
Opinion
(After stating the foregoing facts.) In our opinion the slot machine as operated by the defendant was a gambling device, within the meaning 'of the statute. Meyer v. State, 112 Ga. 20 (37 S. E. 96, 51 L. R. A. 496, 81 Am. St. Rep. 17), and authorities cited; Alexander v. Atlanta, 13 Ga. App. 354 (79 S. E. 177).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brockett v. State, 125 S.E. 513, 33 Ga. App. 57, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 718 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).
125 S.E. 513 (Brockett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Johnnie Wilson
475 F.2d 108 (Ninth Circuit, 1973)
Boyd v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc.
155 S.E.2d 630 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
AAA Amusements, Inc. v. State of Georgia
127 S.E.2d 919 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Miller v. State
74 S.E.2d 108 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Thompson v. Ledbetter
39 S.E.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Elder v. Camp
18 S.E.2d 622 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Jorman v. State
188 S.E. 925 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Jenner v. State
159 S.E. 564 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Harvie v. Heise, Sheriff
148 S.E. 66 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Marvin v. Sloan
250 P. 443 (Montana Supreme Court, 1926)
State v. Krauss
151 N.E. 183 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1926)