Keife v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Keife v. State

70 So. 950, 14 Ala. App. 14, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 5

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 20, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 70 So. 950 (Keife v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keife v. State, 70 So. 950, 14 Ala. App. 14, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 5 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

(1) The indictment in this case is for the offense of keeping, exhibiting, or being interested or concerned in keeping or exhibiting a table for gaming, denounced by section 6985 of the Code of 1907.

“The offense of keeping a gaming table may be committed by a single act, or it may be one continuous in its nature, and may therefore be proved by one act, or a series of acts, showing the requisite criminal intention, by the proper measure of proof. The guilty party need not necessarily be engaged in the business of keeping such table, any more than one who keeps a restaurant, or keeps open store on Sunday contrary to law.”—Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 91, 3 South. 714.

(2) The offense is complete if the defendant keeps, exhibits, or is interested in keeping or exhibiting a table of any kind or description for gaming, whether it be kept in a public or private place.—Bibb v. State, supra; Toney v. State, 61 Ala. 1; Wren v. State, 70 Ala. 1; Martin v. State, 2 Ala. App. 178, 56 South. 64; Minto v. State, 8 Ala. App. 306, 62 South. 376.

(3) The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that the defendant kept or was interested in keeping and exhibiting a table in the rooms occupied by the “Beavers’ Club” in the city of Birmingham for gambling; that the defendant was at this table for 20 consecutive days before his arrest, and that during that time scores of persons visited this place and played the game with cards known as “poker” for money; that the defendant was the dealer, and “pinched the pot” for the benefit of the house.

The defendant does not deny the fact, testified to by one of the state’s witnesses, that he was, on the occasion just before his arrest, engaged in such game at said table, and admits that he was a member of the club where the table was kept. The defendant’s motion tq exclude the evidence was properly overruled.—Brandes v. State, 10 Ala. App. 239, 65 South. 307. The [16]*16fact that the table was kept by the members of the club for their own use was within the statute. The refusal of the charges requested by the defendant was without error.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, J.

(1) The indictment in this case is for the offense of keeping, exhibiting, or being interested or concerned in keeping or exhibiting a table for gaming, denounced by section 6985 of the Code of 1907.

“The offense of keeping a gaming table may be committed by a single act, or it may be one continuous in its nature, and may therefore be proved by one act, or a series of acts, showing the requisite criminal intention, by the proper measure of proof. The guilty party need not necessarily be engaged in the business of keeping such table, any more than one who keeps a restaurant, or keeps open store on Sunday contrary to law.”—Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 91, 3 South. 714.

(2) The offense is complete if the defendant keeps, exhibits, or is interested in keeping or exhibiting a table of any kind or description for gaming, whether it be kept in a public or private place.—Bibb v. State, supra; Toney v. State, 61 Ala. 1; Wren v. State, 70 Ala. 1; Martin v. State, 2 Ala. App. 178, 56 South. 64; Minto v. State, 8 Ala. App. 306, 62 South. 376.

(3) The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that the defendant kept or was interested in keeping and exhibiting a table in the rooms occupied by the “Beavers’ Club” in the city of Birmingham for gambling; that the defendant was at this table for 20 consecutive days before his arrest, and that during that time scores of persons visited this place and played the game with cards known as “poker” for money; that the defendant was the dealer, and “pinched the pot” for the benefit of the house.

The defendant does not deny the fact, testified to by one of the state’s witnesses, that he was, on the occasion just before his arrest, engaged in such game at said table, and admits that he was a member of the club where the table was kept. The defendant’s motion tq exclude the evidence was properly overruled.—Brandes v. State, 10 Ala. App. 239, 65 South. 307. The [16]*16fact that the table was kept by the members of the club for their own use was within the statute. The refusal of the charges requested by the defendant was without error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 So. 950, 14 Ala. App. 14, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keife-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack