Poteete v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Poteete v. State

72 Ala. 558

DecidedDecember 15, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Ala. 558 (Poteete v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poteete v. State, 72 Ala. 558 (Ala. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

The defendant is indicted, under section 4214 of the Code (1876), for knowingly permitting a room, which he had leased as tenant of one Steele, to be used for gaming purposes. The question is, whether, being a 'fuere lessee, he may be regarded as “ the owner or proprietor” of such room, within the meaning of the statute. We are clearly of the opinion that he can be. The words “ owner or proprietor” have no technical, legal signification, but are merely words of common parlance. They include any one having a beneficial interest, whether such interest be entire or partial. As said by Lord DicNMAN, C. J., in Lister v. Lobley, 6 Nev. & Man. 342, “ the owner of the fee, and the owner of a term in the land, are each of them am owner of. the land.” The word “ proprietor ” is of larger signification than “ owner,” and was evidently added so as to embrace any one in control, receiving beneficial [559]*559returns from the class of tenements described in the statute. The two words, “ owner or proprietor,” have been frequently-decided to include a lessee or tenant, in construing various statutes in which they occur.—Lister v. Lobley, 6 Nev. & Man. 342; Ib., 7 Adol. & El. 124; Hall v. Brown, 54 N. H. 495; Pierce v. Concord Railroad, 51 N. H. 590.

The defendant was properly convicted under the rulings of the court, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

The defendant is indicted, under section 4214 of the Code (1876), for knowingly permitting a room, which he had leased as tenant of one Steele, to be used for gaming purposes. The question is, whether, being a 'fuere lessee, he may be regarded as “ the owner or proprietor” of such room, within the meaning of the statute. We are clearly of the opinion that he can be. The words “ owner or proprietor” have no technical, legal signification, but are merely words of common parlance. They include any one having a beneficial interest, whether such interest be entire or partial. As said by Lord DicNMAN, C. J., in Lister v. Lobley, 6 Nev. & Man. 342, “ the owner of the fee, and the owner of a term in the land, are each of them am owner of. the land.” The word “ proprietor ” is of larger signification than “ owner,” and was evidently added so as to embrace any one in control, receiving beneficial [559]*559returns from the class of tenements described in the statute. The two words, “ owner or proprietor,” have been frequently-decided to include a lessee or tenant, in construing various statutes in which they occur.—Lister v. Lobley, 6 Nev. & Man. 342; Ib., 7 Adol. & El. 124; Hall v. Brown, 54 N. H. 495; Pierce v. Concord Railroad, 51 N. H. 590.

The defendant was properly convicted under the rulings of the court, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Ala. 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poteete-v-state-ala-1882.