Furlow & Turner v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Little Eiver Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; 1. A pool table is not per se a gambling device and there is no evidence whatever that gambling was allowed or permitted. Kirby’s Digest, § 1732; 86 Ark. 353; 84 Ala. 13; 116 Ark. 390. 1. The judgment should be affirmed under the decision in 120‘Ark. 450. 2. The facts proven were sufficient to prove a public offense and sustain the conviction.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Little Eiver Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge; 1. A pool table is not per se a gambling device and there is no evidence whatever that gambling was allowed or permitted. Kirby’s Digest, § 1732; 86 Ark. 353; 84 Ala. 13; 116 Ark. 390. 1. The judgment should be affirmed under the decision in 120‘Ark. 450. 2. The facts proven were sufficient to prove a public offense and sustain the conviction. Kirby’s Digest, § 1732; 120 Ark. 450; 27 Ark. 360; 72 Id. 382; 101 Id. 159; 141 S. W. 493.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Appellants were indicted and convicted of the charge of exhibiting a gambling device contrary to the provisions of section 1732 of Kirby’s Digest. From the judgment of conviction they have duly prosecuted .an appeal to this court. The facts are as follows:. Appellants were engaged in operating a pool hall in Ashdown, Little River County, Arkansas. The pool tables in the hall were ordinary pool tables and the usual games that are played on such tables were played by appellant’s customers. Appellant had a sign up which read, “No gambling allowed” and the prosecuting witness stated, so far as he…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. SandersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Town of Dardanelle v. GillespieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Gershner v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Riley v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915