State v. Scott
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Information for furnishing a “ ticker ” for use in and for the maintenance of a pool-room, brought to and reserved* by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, llorabaclc, •/., upon a demurrer to the information, for the advice of this court.
Read the full summary
Information for furnishing a “ ticker ” for use in and for the maintenance of a pool-room, brought to and reserved* by the Superior Court in Fairfield County, llorabaclc, •/., upon a demurrer to the information, for the advice of this court. The information charges “that on the 13th day of December, 1905, at Bridgeport, in said county, James E. Scott, then of said Bridgeport, with force and arms, well knowing that a certain building, room, office and place situated in said Bridgeport, and known as No. 37 Bank Street, was a pool-room, and that on said day one James E. Burnham did keep, manage,…
1Opinion of the CourtHamersley, J.
For more than two hundred years we have treated wagering as against public policy, and playing at the games which promote wagering has been illegal. In the legislation adopted for the suppression of gaming, we have uniformly treated those who promote the offense, either by furnishing a place convenient for its commission or any implement used in its commission, as more dangerous to society and deserving a much greater penalty than the persons who win or lose their money. 1 Col. Rec., pp. 527, 289 ; Comp. 1808, p. 360; General Statutes (1888) §§ 2552-2573.
Section * 1359 of the Revision of 1902…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. HarbourneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- State v. FalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
3Cited by42 opinions
- State v. RoqueSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- State v. RuizSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- State v. PundySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- State v. HaskinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- State v. PetryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.