Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. . Humphries

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 30, 1936PublishedCited by 62 opinions

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partConnor, J.

Criminal action, tried upon indictment charging the defendant with possession of a slot machine in violation of chapter 282, Public Laws 1935.

The State's evidence tended to show that the defendant was in the possession of a machine or device adapted to be operated by the insertion of a coin in a slot. It was called a marble game or table. By placing a nickel coin in the slot the user or operator was entitled to shoot five balls or marbles, one at a time, by means of a plunger attached to a spring. This causes the balls to roll about over the table under a glass top. If the balls fall in…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. . EarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Hutchings v. Commercial Bank of DanvilleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1895
  3. Trust Co. v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  4. State v. . BroadwaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  5. Holmberg v. JonesIdaho Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. Matter of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. State v. SpencerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. State v. CampSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  4. State v. . EmerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  5. State v. EmerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944

57 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