Mastoras v. State, 7 Div. 503.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 503. |
| Citation | 180 So. 115,235 Ala. 519 |
| Parties | MASTORAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
George Mastoras was convicted of operating a gambling device, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The judgment of conviction being there reversed (Mastoras v. State, 180 So. 113), the State, by and through its Attorney General, brings this petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, to review and revise the judgment and decision in said case.
Writ denied.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Motley & Motley, of Gadsden, opposed.
The writ of certiorari is denied, but we do not wish to be understood as approving the statement in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, used arguendo, that a "faro table" or "roulette table" is not a "contrivance, appliance, or invention" within the condemnation of the Act of July 25, 1931, Acts 1931, p. 806.
If the count of the indictment had averred: "The Grand Jury of said County charges that before the finding of this indictment George Mastoras, whose name is unknown to the Grand Jury otherwise than as stated, did possess, keep, own, set up, operate, or conduct, or did permit to be set up, operated, or conducted, a gambling contrivance, appliance or invention, to wit, a faro table, contrary to law," it would have been free of demurrable defects.
Writ of certiorari denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte State of Alabama. ,.
...to be left to implication or intendment, or to conclusion." Mastoras v. State, 28 Ala.App. 123, 126, 180 So. 113, cert. denied, 235 Ala. 519, 180 So. 115 (1938). A court is "without authority to add to, or take from, any of the material averments in the indictment, which speaks for itself a......
-
Sullens v. State
...to be left to implication or intendment, or to conclusion." Mastoras v. State, 28 Ala.App. 123, 126, 180 So. 113, cert. denied, 235 Ala. 519, 180 So. 115 (1938). A court is "without authority to add to, or take from, any of the material averments in the indictment, which speaks for itself a......
-
Barbee v. State, 3 Div. 564
...to be left to implication or intendment, or to conclusion." Mastoras v. State, 28 Ala.App. 123, 126, 180 So. 113, cert. denied, 235 Ala. 519, 180 So. 115 (1938). A court is "without authority to add to, or take from, any of the material averments in the indictment, which speaks for itself a......
-
R.S.M. v. State, CR-04-1609.
...to be left to implication or intendment, or to conclusion.' Mastoras v. State, 28 Ala.App. 123, 126, 180 So. 113, cert. denied, 235 Ala. 519, 180 So. 115 (1938). A court is `without authority to add to, or take from, any of the material averments in the indictment, which speaks for itself a......