Wortham v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Monroe County. Hon. J. A. Green, Judge. Whether “ billiards ” is a game of chance is a question, not of law, but of fact to be decided by the jury. Courts take judicial notice of what ought to be known within the limits of their jurisdiction. 1 Greenl. Evid. § 6. Differences in the nature of games are not of that character.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Monroe County. Hon. J. A. Green, Judge. Whether “ billiards ” is a game of chance is a question, not of law, but of fact to be decided by the jury. Courts take judicial notice of what ought to be known within the limits of their jurisdiction. 1 Greenl. Evid. § 6. Differences in the nature of games are not of that character. The Court of Appeals in Kentucky has said that it does not judicially know what kind of a game “ chuck-a-luck ” is, and that this name does not^er se identify any game of chance, not even chuck-a-luck. Montee v. Commonwealth, 3 J. J. Marsh.…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
Code 1880, § 1121, provides that, “ if any person who sells vinous or spirituous liquors shall permit card playing, dice throwing, or other game of chance on his premises, or in any adjoining apartment subject to his control, he shall, on conviction, be subject to a fine of five hundred dollars and imprisonment for not more than six months, or to either such fine or imprisonment.” The appellant, who is a vendor of vinous and spirituous liquors, was indicted for permitting *181on his premises a certain game of chance, to wit, billiard playing, and from a conviction on this indictment he prosecutes…
2Cited by5 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Ellison v. . LavinNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
- Crittenden v. Town of BoonevilleMississippi Supreme Court · 1908
- Engle v. State of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1939
- Rouse v. SissonMississippi Supreme Court · 1941
- People v. One Slot Machine Owned by Telequiz Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1951