Furlow & Turner v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Furlow & Turner v. State

185 S.W. 788, 123 Ark. 471, 1916 Ark. LEXIS 486

DecidedApril 24, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.W. 788 (Furlow & Turner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Furlow & Turner v. State, 185 S.W. 788, 123 Ark. 471, 1916 Ark. LEXIS 486 (Ark. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hart, J.

Appellants were indicted and convicted of the charge of exhibiting a gambling device contrary to the provisions of section 1732 of Kirby’s Digest. From the judgment of conviction they have duly prosecuted .an appeal to this court. The facts are as follows:

. Appellants were engaged in operating a pool hall in Ashdown, Little River County, Arkansas. The pool tables in the hall were ordinary pool tables and the usual games that are played on such tables were played by appellant’s customers. Appellant had a sign up which read, “No gambling allowed” and the prosecuting witness stated, so far as he knew no gambling had been allowed in the pool hall. It is contended that the judgment should be affirmed under the authority of Riley v. State, 120 Ark. 450, 179 S. W. 661. There appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment which challenged the sufficiency of the indictment. "We held that the indictment was sufficient to charge a public offense but the court expressly said that it could not enter upon the question as to whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge.

In Town of Dardanelle v. Gillespie, 116 Ark. 390, the court held that in the absence of any showing that a pool hall was operated for the purpose of gaming, or was so conducted as to be a nuisance, a town council would have no authority to pass an ordinance prohibiting the maintenance of the pool hall.

There is not the slightest testimony that the pool tables of appellants were used for gaming and that the tables were exhibited to attract betters. There is no proof even that any gaming was carried on in the pool hall. The defendants were not guilty of exhibiting a gaming device under section 1732 of Kirby’s Digest. Gershner v. State, 106 Ark. 488; Johnson v. State, 101 Ark. 159; State v. Sanders, 86 Ark. 353.

It follows that the judgment must be reversed and inasmuch as the proof has been fully developed, the case will be dismissed here.

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

Hart, J.

Appellants were indicted and convicted of the charge of exhibiting a gambling device contrary to the provisions of section 1732 of Kirby’s Digest. From the judgment of conviction they have duly prosecuted .an appeal to this court. The facts are as follows:

. Appellants were engaged in operating a pool hall in Ashdown, Little River County, Arkansas. The pool tables in the hall were ordinary pool tables and the usual games that are played on such tables were played by appellant’s customers. Appellant had a sign up which read, “No gambling allowed” and the prosecuting witness stated, so far as he knew no gambling had been allowed in the pool hall. It is contended that the judgment should be affirmed under the authority of Riley v. State, 120 Ark. 450, 179 S. W. 661. There appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment which challenged the sufficiency of the indictment. "We held that the indictment was sufficient to charge a public offense but the court expressly said that it could not enter upon the question as to whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge.

In Town of Dardanelle v. Gillespie, 116 Ark. 390, the court held that in the absence of any showing that a pool hall was operated for the purpose of gaming, or was so conducted as to be a nuisance, a town council would have no authority to pass an ordinance prohibiting the maintenance of the pool hall.

There is not the slightest testimony that the pool tables of appellants were used for gaming and that the tables were exhibited to attract betters. There is no proof even that any gaming was carried on in the pool hall. The defendants were not guilty of exhibiting a gaming device under section 1732 of Kirby’s Digest. Gershner v. State, 106 Ark. 488; Johnson v. State, 101 Ark. 159; State v. Sanders, 86 Ark. 353.

It follows that the judgment must be reversed and inasmuch as the proof has been fully developed, the case will be dismissed here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.W. 788, 123 Ark. 471, 1916 Ark. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furlow-turner-v-state-ark-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack