Frost v. People
| Decision Date | 18 December 1901 |
| Citation | 193 Ill. 635,61 N.E. 1054 |
| Parties | FROST v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to city court of Mattoon; J. F. Hughes, Judge.
Proceeding for the seizure and destruction of property used for gambling purposes, found in possession of Jerome Dunn, in which John R. Frost intervened as owner of the property. From a judgment ordering the destruction of a part of the property, intervener brings error. Affirmed.Andrews & Vause, for plaintiff in error.
H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., E. S. Smith, B. D. Monroe, and Geo. B. Gillespie, for the People.
Upon complaint in writing, verified by affidavit, a search warrant was issued by the judge of the city court of the city of Mattoon, commanding a search of the building numbered 1816 and 1818 West Broadway, in said city, for gaming apparatus and implements used, kept, and provided to be used in unlawful gaming, and directing the arrest of Jerome Dunn, in whose possession said gaming apparatus and implements were alleged to be. The warrant was returned by the sheriff executed by seizing the following chattels found on the second floor of said building, to wit: ‘About 2,500 chips, four poker tables, one stud-poker table, three crap tables, one long table, three packs cards, one faro table and layout, 260 dice, one roulette wheel and table, one desk, eighteen chairs, one office chair, four stools,’ and also by arresting the said Jerome Dunn. Plaintiff in error appeared, upon the return of the warrant, and was allowed to interplead, and entered his motion to quash the writ and return for the reason that the affidavit upon which the writ was issued did not particularly describe the property to be taken under the search warrant. The motion was overruled, and he excepted. He then filed his intervening petition, claiming to be the owner of the property found in the rooms on the second floor of No. 1816, and alleging that the implements and apparatus were not used for gaming at the time they were seized, but were stored in the room, and were ‘knocked down,’ and not in condition for use. On the hearing of the cause he demanded a jury to try the issues, which was refused by the court, and he excepted. The cause was heard in a summary way by the court, and, as to the property claimed by plaintiff in error, the court made a finding that the property found in the rooms on the second floor of No. 1816, viz. two crap tables, one faro layout, and one roulette wheel and table, were gaming implements, and had no value or use for any other purpose, and the same were condemned and ordered destroyed. The rest of the chattels found in said rooms on the second floor of No. 1816 the court found were not in actual use for gaming purposes, and, being of value for other purposes, it was ordered that they be returned to plaintiff in error. The writ of error in this case was sued out to review the judgment against the property ordered to be destroyed.
The judgment being in favor of plaintiff in error except as to the two crap tables, one faro layout, and one roulette wheel and table, which the evidence showed to be purely gambling apparatus and implements, and to have no value or use for any other purpose, the only questions to be considered relate to the alleged errors in seizing them and rendering judgment against them.
The first question relates to the ruling of the court in refusing to quash the writ and return. The complaint charged that the second floor of the building was a place resorted to for unlawful gaming, and that gaming implements and apparatus were concealed on said second floor of said building occupied by Jerome Dunn. The writ followed the complaint, and the objection made was that the description of the property to be searched for was not sufficiently definite and particular. The statute authorizes searches for gaming apparatus or implements, and it would not be sufficient to describe the property as goods, wares, and merchandise, or as chattels generally. The description must be so particular that the officer charged with the execution of the warrant will be left with no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Igoe v. Joynt
...Liquor Co. v. People, 63 Colo. 456, 168 P. 750; Mullen & Co. v. Moseley, 13 Idaho 457, 90 P. 986, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 394; Frost v. People, 193 Ill. 635, 61 N.E. 1054; Garland Novelty Co. v. State, 71 Ark. 138, 71 257; 81 A. L. R. 730, note.] In the respondent's return to the provisional wr......
-
Mims Amusement v. Law Enforcement Div.
...Brett v. Four Bell Fruit Gum Slot Machines, 196 Okla. 44, 162 P.2d 539 (1945) (slot machines are contraband per se); Frost v. People, 193 Ill. 635, 61 N.E. 1054, 1056 (1901) (craps tables and roulette wheel are contraband per se because they "had no value or use for any other purpose than t......
-
U.S. v. Klein, 77-1121
...the Constitution requires a description sufficiently particular to identify the articles sought to be seized. Frost v. People, 193 Ill. 635, 61 N.E. 1054, 86 Am.St.Rep. 352. A minute and detailed description of the property to be seized is not required, but the property must be so definitel......
-
J.B. Mullen & Co. v. Mosley
... ... 455, 52 L. R. A. 775; Garland Novelty Co ... v. State, 71 Ark. 138, 71 S.W. 257; State v ... Soucie's Hotel, 95 Me. 518, 50 A. 709; Frost v ... People, 193 Ill. 635, 86 Am. St. Rep. 352, 61 N.E. 1054; ... Furth v. State, 72 Ark. 161, 78 S.W. 759; ... Glennon v. Britton, 155 ... ...