State v. . King

18 S.E. 169, 113 N.C. 631
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 S.E. 169 (State v. . King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. . King, 18 S.E. 169, 113 N.C. 631 (N.C. 1893).

Opinion

Shepherd, C. J.:

The defendant is indicted for a violation of chapter 29 of the Acts of 1891, which provides: “That it shall be unlawful for any person to play at a game of chance at which money, property or other thing of value is bet, whether the same be in stake or not, and those who play and bet therein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” The defendant both played and bet at a game known as “ten-pins,” and the manner in which such game is played is particularly described in the special verdict. The only question to be decided is whether such a game is a game of chance, and that it is not we have direct authority in the case of State v. Gupton, 8 Ired., 271. After an interesting discussion as to what constitutes a game of chance, RuefiN, C. J., concludes that “ we take this game to be one species of the game known in England and spoken of in her statutes under the general term of bowls, and, if it be, there is legal authority for holding it not to be a game of chance.” The Attorney General, with his usual and commendable candor, yields the case under the above decision. Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Stroupe
76 S.E.2d 313 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
State v. Brown
221 N.C. 301 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 S.E. 169, 113 N.C. 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-king-nc-1893.