State v. Kuntz

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kuntz

83 Mo. App. 631, 1900 Mo. App. LEXIS 223

DecidedMarch 13, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 83 Mo. App. 631 (State v. Kuntz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Kuntz, 83 Mo. App. 631, 1900 Mo. App. LEXIS 223 (Mo. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

BIGGS, J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted for permitting a “slot-machine,” which was charged to be a gambling device, to be operated on premises owned or occupied by him. The defendant has appealed.

It is urged that the indictment is insufficient in that it does not describe the slot-machine, and further that the defendant should have been indicted under section 3018. Revised Statutes 1899, as the evidence tended to show that he was a saloon keeper, and that the slot-machine was operated in his saloon building. These questions arose in the case of State v. Howell, 83 Mo. App, 198 upon substantially the same record that we have here, and were decided adversely to the defendant. Eor the reasons stated in our opinion in that case like rulings will be made in this. Therefore the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

BIGGS, J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted for permitting a “slot-machine,” which was charged to be a gambling device, to be operated on premises owned or occupied by him. The defendant has appealed.

It is urged that the indictment is insufficient in that it does not describe the slot-machine, and further that the defendant should have been indicted under section 3018. Revised Statutes 1899, as the evidence tended to show that he was a saloon keeper, and that the slot-machine was operated in his saloon building. These questions arose in the case of State v. Howell, 83 Mo. App, 198 upon substantially the same record that we have here, and were decided adversely to the defendant. Eor the reasons stated in our opinion in that case like rulings will be made in this. Therefore the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 Mo. App. 631, 1900 Mo. App. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kuntz-moctapp-1900.