§ 713. Games.-Ordinary games are rather encouraged by the law than discouraged. But if public sentiment is scandalized, games may be indictable as nuisances.1 So disorderly bowling alleys which draw crowds of idlers, or disorderly billiard rooms, or noisy baseball playing on Sunday3 or public spectacles which collect needless crowds, have been held nuisances, and indictable as such. §714. Gaming.-At common law gaming in a public place, whereby persons inexperienced lose their money on games of chance, is indictable as a nuisance. In this sense 1 Whart. Crim. L. (11th ed.), § 1733. 2 State v. Records, 4 Har. (Del.) 554; State v. Haines, 30 Maine 65; State v. Hall, 32 N. J. L. 158; Tanner v. Albion, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 121, 40 Am. Dec. 337. 3 Gilbough v. West Side Amusement Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 27, 53 Atl. 289. 4 Rex. v. Carlile, 6 Car. & P. 636; Reg. v. Grey, 4 Fost. & F. 73. 5 United States v. Dixon, Fed. Cas. No. 14970, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 107; Vanderworker v. State, 13 Ark. 700; Bloomhuff v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 205; Commonwealth v. Stahl, 7 Allen (Mass.) 304; Barada v. State, 13 Mo. 94; State v. Saunders, 66 N. H. 39, 25 Atl. 588, 18 L. R. A. 646; Lord v. State, 16 N. H. 325, 41 Am. Dec. 729; People v. Jackson, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 101, 45 Am. Dec. 449; Rex. v. Medlor, 2 Show. 36. gaming means the staking of something of value upon the result of a game of chance, that is, games which depend more largely on chance than skill. Private gaming was not indictable at common law." § 715. Public place. To sustain a common-law indictment for gaming the place must be public, but it does not matter if it be secluded, when the fact that gaming is there carried on is publicly known. The following, among others, have been held to be public places, either under common law, or statutes similar to the common law; any place where there is an assemblage of people, a barber shop and room above,10 a bedroom kept locked, but opened to all who wished to gamble,11 an infirmary, 12 inclosed grounds to which an entrance fee is charged,13 a ferry-boat,1 a dismantled jail,15 a jury room,16 the office of a justice of the peace,17 an outhouse, 18 a place near enough to a public road to be seen by passers, a 6 Allen v. Commonwealth, 178 Ky. 250, 198 S. W. 896; Almy Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, 202 Ill. App. 240; People v. McDonald, 165 N. Y. S. 41, 177 App. Div. 806. 7 Hanrahan V. State, 57 Ind. 527; State v. Currier, 23 Maine 43; Commonwealth V. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6; Needham v. State, 1 Tex. 139. 8 United States v. Dixon, Fed Cas. No. 14970, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 107; Vanderworker v. State, 13 Ark. 700; Bloomhuff v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 205; Commonwealth v. Stahl, 7 Allen (Mass.) 304; Barada v. State, 13 Mo. 94; State v. Saunders, 66 N. H. 39, 25 Atl. 588, 18 L. R. A. 646; Lord v. State, 16 N. H. 325, 41 Am. Dec. 729; People v. Jackson, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 101, 45 Am. Dec. 449; Rex v. Medlor, 19 2 Show. 36. See also, Dickey v. State, 68 Ala. 508, 4 Am. Cr. 249; State v. Book, 41 Iowa 550, 20 Am. Rep. 609, 1 Am. Cr. 234; State v. Barns, 25 Tex. 654; note to 7 Ann. Cas. 240. 9 Campbell v. State, 17 Ala. 369. 10 Cochran v. State, 30 Ala. 542. 11 Smith v. State, 52 Ala. 384. 12 Flake v. State, 19 Ala. 551. 13 Eastwood v. Millar, L. R. 9, Q. B. 440. 14 Dickey v. State, 68 Ala. 508. 15 Walker v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cas. 515. 16 Wilcox v. State, 26 Tex. 145. 17 Burnett v. State, 30 Ala. 19. 18 Downey v. State, 90 Ala. 644, 8 So. 869; State v. Norton, 19 Tex. 102. 19 Bledsoe v. State, 21 Tex. 223. railway coach,20 a room in an inn,21 a school house,22 a steamboat, 23 a path near a school house used by children,24 a shoemaker's shop,25 a toll house,26 an umbrella tent at a race course,27 or a movable booth used to sell chances.28 Among others, the following have been held not to be public places: a club room open to members only,29 the office of a lawyer,30 or a physician, also used for sleeping quarters,31 to which friends are invited, a private house,32 a liverystable, a bedroom back of an office, a secluded place on the top of a mountain.3 33 35 84 § 716. What have been held games of chance. It has been held in England that racing between trained dogs is not a game of chance, 36 nor horse racing for improvement of stock, also dependent on training,37 unless the element of chance preponderates.38 Cock fighting is gaming, being dependent on chance.39 The decisions have been upheld that games of 20 Langrish v. Archer, L. R. 10 Q. B. Div. 44, 15 Cox Cr. C. 194. 21 McCalman v. State, 96 Ala. 98, 11 So. 408; State v. Mosby, 53 Mo. App. 571. 22 Cole v. State, 28 Tex. App. 536, 13 S. W. 859, 19 Am. St. 856. 23 Coleman v. State, 13 Ala. 602. 24 Henderson v. State, 59 Ala. 89. 25 Campbell v. State, 17 Ala. 369. 26 Arnold v. State, 29 Ala. 46. 27 Bows v. Fenwick, L. R. 9 C. P. 339. 28 Rex v. Saunders, 12 Ont. L. Rep. 615, 7 Ann. Cas. 232. 29 Koenig v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 367, 26 S. W. 835, 47 Am. St. 35; Grant v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 527, 27 S. W. 127. 30 Burdine v. State, 25 Ala. 60. 31 Clarke v. State, 12 Ala. 492. 32 Coleman v. State, 20 Ala. 51. 33 Metzer v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 11, 19 S. W. 254. 34 Wilson v. State, 31 Ala. 371. 35 Gerrels v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 26 S. W. 394. 36 Hirst v. Molesbury, L. R. 6 Q. B. 130. Generally, as to what is a gambling device, see note 121 Am. St. 693. 37 Delier v. Plymouth County Agr. Soc., 57 Iowa 481, 10 N. W. 872. See also, State v. Hayden, 31 Mo. 35; Coombes v. Dibble, L. R. 1 Exch. 248; Oliphant, Horses, 412. 38 Tollet v. Thomas, L. R. 6 Q. B. 514. See also, Morgan v. Beaumont, 121 Mass. 7. 39 Commonwealth v. Tilton, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 232. 43 chance include: "rondo,"4° draw poker,11 monte,42 craps, tan, baccarat,45 keno,46 faro, 47 roulette,48 thimble and balls, the selling of Paris mutual or French pools on horse races,50 pool selling on base ball,51 or pool selling generally;52 and under some decisions betting on horse races.53 Ninepins, fairly conducted,54 football and base ball,55 wrestling matches, 56 rowing matches,57 cricket,58 bowls, 59 foot racing, billiards,61 backgammon,62 dominoes,63 and shuffle 40 Glascock v. State, 10 Mo. 508. 41 Wren v. State, 70 Ala. 1; Lyle v. State, 30 Tex. App. 118, 16 S. W. 765, 28 Am. St. 893. 42 Wardlow v. State, 18 Tex. App. 356. 43 Bell v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 187, 22 S. W. 687; State v. Wade, 267 Mo. 249, 183 S. W. 598. 44 People v. Ah Own, 85 Cal. 580, 24 Pac. 780. 45 Jenks v. Turpin, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 505, 15 Cox Cr. C. 486. 46 United States v. Hornibrook, Fed. Cas. No. 15390, 2 Dill. (U. S.) 229; Schuster v. State, 48 Ala. 199; Hazen v. State, 18 Fla. 184; Brown v. State, 40 Ga. 689. 47 Wren v. State, 70 Ala. 1; Waddell v. Commonwealth, 84 Ky. 276, 1 S. W. 480; State v. Andrews, 43 Mo. 470. 48 Mims v. State, 88 Ga. 48, 14 S. E. 712; Ritte v. Commonwealth, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 35. 49 State v. Red, 7 Rich. L. (S. Car.) 8. 50 Rogers v. State, 26 Ala. 76; Commonwealth v. Simonds, 79 Ky. 618; Brown v. State, 88 Tenn. 566, 13 S. W. 236. But see Rice v. State, 63 Md. XIV. 51 People v. Weithoff, 51 Mich. 203, 16 N. W. 442, 47 Am. Rep. 557. 52 Scollans v. Flynn, 120 Mass. 270; People v. Reilly, 50 Mich. 384, 15 N. W. 520, 45 Am. Rep. 47; Jones v. State, 38 Okla. 218, 132 Pac. 319, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 161; People v. McDonald, 165 N. Y. S. 41, 177 App. Div. 806; State v. Bird, 29 Idaho 47, 156 Pac. 1140; State v. Pelham, 29 Idaho 52, 156 Pac. 1141; People v. Solomon, 160 N. Y. S. 942, 174 App. Div. 144. 53 James v. State, 40 Okla. Cr. 103, 113 Pac. 226, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 827; State v. Vaughan, 81 Ark. 117, 98 S. W. 685, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 899, 11 Ann. Cas. 277. 54 State v. King, 113 N. Car. 631, 18 S. E. 169. 55 Maca v. State, 58 Ark. 79, 22 S. W. 1108. 56 People v. Taylor, 96 Mich. 576, 56 N. W. 27, 21 L. R. A. 287. 57 Bostock v. R. R., 3 M. Dig. 274. 58 Hodson v. Terrill, 1 Cromp. & M. 797, 2 L. J. Exch. (N. S.) 282. 59 Sigel v. Jebb, 3 Stark. 1. 60 Batty v. Marriott, 5 C. B. 818. 61 People v. Forbes, 52 Hun 30, 4 N. Y. 757; Parsons v. Alexander, 1 Jur. (N. S.) 660, 5 E1. & Bl. 263. 62 Wetmore v. State, 55 Ala. 198. 63 Whitney v. State, 10 Tex. App. 377; Reg. v. Ashton, 1 El. & Bl. 286, 17 Jur. 501. But see Harris v. State, 31 Ala. 362, 33 Ala. 373. board,64 have been held to be lawful even though played for a stake; but under some statutes a wager on such games would be indictable. § 717. Statutes against gaming.-Gaming as indictable by statute is gambling, that is, the staking of money on a game involving chance.65 As at common law neither gaming or betting was indictable of itself.66 The statutes are strictly construed.67 However, immaterial variances will be disregarded.68 Any contest for a wager, more or less dependent on chance is said to be gambling,69 as is the staking of money on the result of a game either of chance or skill,70 or even determining by throwing cards who shall pay the expenses of a party. Playing a single prohibited game may be sufficient to support the indictment.72 All who have anything to do with the management of the game or table are principals, whether or not they take part in the game;73 for 64 State v. Bishop, 30 N. Car. 266. 65 McInnis v. State, 51 Ala. 23; Williams v. Warsaw, 60 Ind. 457; Carr v. State, 50 Ind. 178; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 14 Gray (Mass.) 26; Carper v. State, 27 Ohio St. 572; Harrison v. State, 4 Coldw. (Tenn.), 195; Bachellor v. State, 10 Tex. 258. 66 Hanrahan v. State, 57 Ind. 527; State v. Currier, 23 Maine 43; Commonwealth v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6; Needham v. State, 1 Tex. 139. 67 Gibbons v. People, 33 Ill. 442; Commonwealth v. Kammerer, 13 S. W. 108, 11 Ky. L. 777; State v. Bryant, 90 Mo. 534, 2 S. W. 836. 68 Ballentine v. State, 48 Ark. 45, 2 S. W. 340; Commonwealth v. Hogarty, 141 Mass. 106, 4 N. E. 831; State v. Marchant, 15 R. I. 539, 9 Atl. 902, 7 Am. Cr. 217. 69 State v. Smith, Meigs (Tenn.) 99, 33 Am. Dec. 132. 70 Commonwealth v. Taylor, 14 Gray (Mass.) 26; State v. Bryant, 90 Mo. 534, 2 S. W. 836. 71 McDaniel v. Commonwealth, 6 Bush (Ky.) 326; State v. Leighton, 23 N. H. 167. 72 Swallow v. State, 20 Ala. 30; Bell v. State, 92 Ga. 49, 18 S. E. 186; Hankins v. People, 106 Ill. 628; Torney v. State, 13 Mo. 455; State v. Melville, 11 R. I. 417, 3 Am. Cr. 158. 73 Poteete v. State, 72 Ala. 558; People v. Sam Lung, 70 Cal. 515, 11 Pac. 673; State v. Haines, 30 Maine 65; State v. Crummey, 17 Minn. 72. |