Murphy v. Rogers

24 N.E. 35, 151 Mass. 118, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 160
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 26, 1890·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The second ruling which was requested should have been given. If the plaintiff kept a billiard saloon, and played with the defendant upon the terms that the defendant should pay for the use of the table by both parties in case he lost, but otherwise that he should not pay anything, that was gaming, within the meaning of the Pub. Sts. c. 99, § 5.

Footnotes

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

Murphy v. Rogers, 24 N.E. 35, 151 Mass. 118, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 160 (Mass. 1890).

24 N.E. 35 (Murphy v. Rogers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Theatre Advertising Co.
190 N.E. 518 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Boylston Bottling Co. v. O'Neill
121 N.E. 411 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Kemp v. Hammond Hotels
115 N.E. 572 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Kennedy v. Welch
83 N.E. 11 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Hopkins v. State
69 L.R.A. 117 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)