Jacobs v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Calvin T. Gotham, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellant was convicted on five separate indictments for exhibiting certain gambling devices, each indictment being for the exhibition of a different one.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Calvin T. Gotham, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellant was convicted on five separate indictments for exhibiting certain gambling devices, each indictment being for the exhibition of a different one. One indictment charged him with exhibiting a gambling device, commonly called “klondike;” another with exhibiting a gambling device, commonly called a “crap table;” ■ another with exhibiting a gambling device commonly called “roulette;” the fourth with exhibiting a gambling device commonly called “faro bank;” and the fifth charged him with exhibiting a…
1DissentHart, J.
Although the setting up or exhibiting of each of the gamirg tables mentioned in section 1732 of Kirby’s Digest may be a separate offense when done by different persons at the same time or by the same person at different times, I think the setting up or exhibiting of two or more of the tables by the same person at the same time and at the same place are co-operating acts, and constitute but one offense, for which but one punishment can be inflicted. Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 4 Dana (Ky.) 518; Commonwealth v. Casson, 6 Phil. (Pa.) 381; Leath v. Commonwealth 32 Gratt. (Va.) 873; Wingard v. State,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wingard v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
- Keoun v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Grant v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902