City of Moberly v. Kervin

• Citation: 234 S.W. 514
• Decision Date: 07 November 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13743.,13743.
• Parties: CITY OF MOBERLY v. KERVIN et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

234 S.W. 514

CITY OF MOBERLY v. KERVIN et al.

No. 13743.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 7, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; A. W. Walker, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

J. Kervin, J. E. Rogers, James Fuller, H. Messick, William Dunn, D. W. Strawrick, G. A. Moore, and Harry Davis were convicted of violating an ordinance relating to playing and betting on games of chance, and appeal. Affirmed.

J. H. Whitecotton, of Moberly, for appellants.

Edmund Burke, of Moberly, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

Defendants were convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Moberly relating to playing and betting on games of chance and each was fined $75. The information reads as follows:

"Now comes Edmund Burke, city attorney within and for the city of Moberly, Mo., and informs the court that said J. Kervin, J. E. Rogers, James Fuller, R. Messick, William Dunn, D. W. Strawrick, G. A. Moore, Harry Davis, on the 3d day of January, 1920, at said city did then and there unlawfully play at a game of chance, commonly called cards, for money, with a gambling device, to wit, with a pack of cards, and a table used and adapted in playing games of chance for money and property, contrary to section 1 of an ordinance of said city, entitled `An ordinance in relation to playing and betting on games of chance in the city of Moberly, Mo.,' and against the peace and dignity of the city."

It is insisted that the information is insufficient. We rule this point against the defendants. The gist of the offense was playing at a game of chance for money. The information was sufficient. It notified the defendants of the particular ordinance they were charged with violating and is sufficiently definite to bar another prosecution for the same offense. City of Mexico v. Harris, 115 Mo. App. 707, 711, 92 S. W. 545; City of Poplar Bluff v. Meadows, 187 Mo. App. 450 173 S. W. 11; City of Gallatin v. Tarwater, 143 Mo. 40, 44 S. W. 750; City of St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600, 31 S. W. 1045.

It is insisted that defendants' demurrers to the evidence should have been given; that there was no "sufficient legal testimony" to sustain a judgment against the defendants as required by section 8248, R. S. 1919. The evidence shows that a policeman looked over the window into the room where defendants were "playing cards for money"; that he saw the cards in their hands and saw money on the table and money in the hands of all of the defendants except one; that this one was in an attitude suggesting that he was gambling; that all were playing cards for money; that he then went for another policeman; that the two then went to the room where defendants were closeted, listened and looked through the keyhole; that one of the defendants came out, whereupon one of the police officers put his foot into the door. The officers attempted to force their way into the room, but some of the defendants attempted to hold the door. The police told defendants to open the door or they would break it down. The police then went in and found some of the defendants lying on the bed arid others sitting around in their shirt sleeves; they found a table, a deck of cards, and 13 other decks in drawers. The defendants were put under arrest, and one of them said, "Keep quiet, boys; let us settle...