Dentler v. State

• Decision Date: 25 June 1896
• Citation: 20 So. 592,112 Ala. 70
• Parties: DENTLER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

20 So. 592

112 Ala. 70

DENTLER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 25, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; H. C. Speake, Judge.

Earnest Dentler was convicted of a violation of the statute against engaging in the business of a dealer in playing cards without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.

The indictment, which was preferred on February 27, 1895, was as follows: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, Earnest Dentler engaged in, or carried on the business of a dealer in 'playing cards,' without a license, and contrary to law, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." The defendant demurred to this indictment on the grounds, (1) that it fails to show that the defendant engaged in or carried on the business of a dealer in playing cards, after the 15th day of January in any year in which a license was required, and (2) that said indictment does not show that the defendant engaged in the business of selling playing cards in any year for which a license was required. This demurrer was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions, the state introduced as a witness one Harry Ragland, who testified that he had bought cards from defendant as many as 12 times or more; that the last time he bought playing cards from the defendant was on the night of December 24, 1894. The defendant objected "to any evidence of buying playing cards prior to December 24, 1894 unless it was shown that such purchases were made within 12 months after the day the indictment was found." This objection was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. This witness further testified that he remembered distinctly buying three decks of cards from the defendant about a week or 10 days before December 24, 1894, and that he had bought cards from the defendant frequently in November and December 1894. The defendant as a witness in his own behalf testified that he was a clerk in the store from which the witness Ragland said the cards were purchased; that said store was owned by his mother, Mrs. Wilhelmina Dentler; that he did not sell the witness Ragland any cards during the year 1894; that three or four years ago he did sell the witness cards, but he then had a license therefor. The state introduced evidence which impeached the testimony of the defendant, and also introduced evidence that his character for truth and veracity were bad, and that the witness testifying thereto would not believe him on oath. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "If the jury believe from the evidence in this case that the cards sold were the property of Mrs. Wilhelmina Dentler and that they were not owned by defendant, and that they were sold in the store of Mrs Dentler in which she was doing business, and that it was not Earnest Dentler's cards nor his store, and that the money for the cards went to Mrs. Dentler, then you must find defendant not guilty, he not being a dealer in playing cards." (2) "It must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant engaged in the business of a playing-card dealer within twelve months before the finding of the indictment, and one sale is not enough to show this and you are not to be regard any evidence of sales made more than twelve months before the finding of the indictment." The bill of exceptions then recites "The jury then retired to the jury room, and after some deliberation returned into court, the judge asked if they had agreed on their verdict, and the foreman answered 'We have,' the judge directed the foreman to hand the verdict to the clerk, which was done, and the judge then directed the clerk to read, and the clerk read the following verdict, which was in writing and signed by the foreman: 'We the jury find the defendant guilty, and fix his fine at fifty dollars and cost.' The solicitor then proposed to reduce the fine to $15 instead of $50. The defendant objected to this, and the court refused to reduce the fine. The defendant then moved the court to let the verdict remain as it was, and to enter judgment for the fine as fixed by the jury. The court overruled this motion and defendant duly excepted. The court then told the jury that they could not fine defendant more than $15 (three times the amount of the state license), and banded them back the verdict, and they again retired to the jury room, and after short deliberation returned with a verdict which was as follows: 'We the jury find defendant guilty and fix his fine at fifteen dollars and cost.' This verdict was signed by the foreman, and was in writing. Defendant objected to the court's receiving this verdict. The court overruled the objection and defendant duly excepted. The defendant then objected to the court's entering judgment on this verdict. The court overruled the objection, and defen...