Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Mack v. State

Mack v. State

16 S.E.2d 519, 65 Ga. App. 812, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 423
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 19, 1941
Docket29131.
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 16 S.E.2d 519 (Mack 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
Mack v. State, 16 S.E.2d 519, 65 Ga. App. 812, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 423 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. There was testimony as to how the lottery <or “number game” is conducted, and chances sold on the guess for *813 the winning number, which is determined by certain digits in the bond sales on the New York Stock Exchange for that day. This bond-sales report is made at two o’clock p. m., hence the tickets have to be turned in to the “pick-up man” before two o’clock. At about one o’clock on the day in question the defendant was walking up Hilliard Street in the City of Atlanta. The officers called to him and requested him to come over to the car. The defendant broke and ran. The officers ran after and overtook him, and found him trying to throw away a large number of lottery tickets. The ■evidence authorized his conviction of violating the lottery laws. Morrow v. State, 63 Ga. App. 264 (10 S. E. 2d, 762); Ransome v. State, 53 Ga. App. 490 (186 S. E. 436). For the method of operating the “number game” see Cutcliffe v. State, 51 Ga. App. 40 (179 S. E. 568).

2. The testimony of Wilbur as to the manner of operation of the lottery known as the “number game” was properly admitted. Lunsford v. State, 60 Ga. App. 537 (2, 6) (4 S. E. 2d, 113), and ■cit.

3. The lottery tickets were properly admitted in evidence. Lunsford V. State, supra, (6).

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

Related

Williams v. State
69 S.E.2d 647 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Lumpkin v. State
65 S.E.2d 184 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Figures v. State
57 S.E.2d 629 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Mills v. State
30 S.E.2d 824 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Reeder v. State
26 S.E.2d 481 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Dickerson v. State
22 S.E.2d 207 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Thomas v. State
20 S.E.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Wright v. State
20 S.E.2d 174 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Taylor v. State
20 S.E.2d 146 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Johnson v. State
19 S.E.2d 843 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Ivey v. State
19 S.E.2d 844 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Allen v. State
19 S.E.2d 843 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 S.E.2d 519, 65 Ga. App. 812, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-state-gactapp-1941.