Legal Opinion

Howell v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 6, 1931PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKirby, J.

Upon information filed in the Fort Smith municipal court a slot machine, known as a “Mills Mint Vending Machine,” was seized as a gambling device, and upon a hearing H. C. Howell, one of the proprietors of the Hattaway Drug Company’s stores where the machine was being operated, filed an intervention claiming that he was the owner of the machine and prayed that it be returned to him.

The intervention was denied, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court, where, upon trial, the mint vending machine was held to he' a gambling device and subject to seizure as such, and the intervention of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Moberly v. DeskinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
  2. Rankin v. Mills Novelty Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  3. Harvie v. Heise, SheriffSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1929

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Sharp v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002
  2. State v. TorresSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. State v. WileySupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
  4. Pre-Paid Solutions, Inc. v. City of Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  5. Stanley v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API