James v. State
| Citation | 190 Ind. 629,130 N.E. 115 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 23828.,23828. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAMES v. STATE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.
Otto James was convicted of keeping a building to be used for gaming, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Fred R. Bonifield and Robbins & Weyl, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh and A. G. Cavins, both of Indianapolis, for the State.
Appellant was prosecuted under Burns' 1914, § 2466 (Acts 1905, c. 169, p. 716, § 557), upon an affidavit charging that at a time and place stated he did unlawfully keep a certain building “to be used for gaming, and *** unlawfully and knowingly permit Clay Oliver, Forrest Oliver, Thomas Hewitt, and others unknown, to play at certain games for money,” etc. Having been found and adjudged guilty, he filed his motion for a new trial, for the alleged reasons that the finding and decision was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to law, which motion was overruled, and the appellant excepted. Appellant concedes the sufficiency of the affidavit, but denies that the offense charged was proved.
The statute provides that “whoever keeps a building *** to be used or occupied for gaming, or knowingly permits the same to be used or occupied for gaming, *** shall, on conviction, be” punished as there provided. There was evidence that the police found that crap shooting for money was going on in a dining room in the rear of a pool room operated by appellants' brother; that the police officers rushed into the room and arrested 19 persons, including appellant, and that 6 of them, including appellant, pleaded guilty to the charge of gambling and were each fined $5 and costs; that all of them were released on bond, and two hours later, that same evening, the police broke into the same room, when dice were being thrown, and when money was on the table, and seized the dice and money, and the box, and again arrested 10 men, including appellant, who was in the room when the police broke in both times. Appellant testified that the men in the room were “gambling,” and that he was arrested and fined for gambling the first time. A witness testified that appellant has a pool room there, and that the police came in the back way and broke through the door, and one of them picked up three half dollars from the table; that “one of the James boys” had a big roll of greenbacks; and it was testified that appellant's brother at the time was out in the pool room attending to business. The witness stated that appellant has a pool room there, and soft drinks, and that this was in the second room back of the pool room; that Forrest Oliver was there, and was convicted on a plea of guilty; and that Thomas Hewitt was there the second time, and he pleaded guilty. The lieutenant in charge of the police who made the second raid that evening testified that he ask...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- James v. State
-
Hall v. State
...this court will not consider any contradictory evidence which, by so doing, would be in the nature of weighing the same. James v. State (Ind. Sup.) 130 N. E. 115;Lee v. State (Ind. Sup.) 132 N. E. 582. [2] From the facts that it was found that appellant had in his possession several barrels......