Ponder v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1918 |
| Citation | 80 So. 311,76 Fla. 526 |
| Parties | PONDER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Leon County; E. C. Love, Judge.
William Ponder was convicted of permitting certain named persons to play for money in a certain game in his place of business. His motion for new trial was denied, and from the sentence he brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
The purpose and intent of section 3572, Gen. St. 1906, was to prohibit, not the gaming or gambling itself, but the keeping of a house or other place for any manner of gaming or gambling.
Upon a charge under this statute, where it is alleged that the place in which the gambling occurred was in the exclusive possession and control of the defendant, where witnesses testifying refer to such place as 'William Ponder's place,' or 'William Ponder's place of business,' others say that 'William Ponder was in charge when I went in there,' that they 'heard William Ponder say it was his place,' and other similar expressions, and a witness, who was a policeman, testified that, 'If Ponder would see me, he would make some motion to the crowd, and they would stop playing,' referring in each instance to the defendant, there is evidence to support a verdict of guilty upon such charge, and no fatal variance between the pleadings and the proofs, although the defendant himself testifies that he and his brother are in charge of such place, that they rent the building together, pay taxes in their joint names upon the property employed in the business conducted in such place, and that the license for running such business is in their joint names.
COUNSEL W. C. Hodges, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.
Van C Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and Worth W. Trammell, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant was tried and convicted in the circuit court of Leon county for the crime of suffering and permitting certain named persons to play for money a certain game, in his place of business in the city of Tallahassee.
The count of the indictment upon which the defendant was convicted, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
'And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present and say that the said William Ponder, late of the county of Leon aforesaid, in the circuit and state aforesaid, laborer, on the said 20th day of May, A. D. 1916, with force and arms at and in the county of Leon aforesaid, and from said 20th day of May, A. D. 1916, continuously up to the day of the date of the filing of this indictment, unlawfully and feloniously did suffer and permit Richard Washington, Lawrence Williams, and other persons whose names are to the grand jurors unknown, to play for money at a certain game called High Number in his place of business on College Avenue street, in the city of Tallahassee, county of Leon, state of Florida, he, the said William Ponder, having exclusive possession and control of his said place of business, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Florida.'
The trial court denied a motion for a new trial and sentenced the defendant to the payment of a fine of $250, and in default thereof, to be confined at hard labor in the county jail of Leon county for a term of six months. From the sentence imposed, he takes writ of error.
The prosecution is based upon section 3572, General Statutes of 1906. The pertinent portions of this statute read as follows:
'Whoever * * * in any place of which he may directly or indirectly have charge, control or management, either exclusively or with others, procures, suffers or permits any person to play for money or other valuable thing at any game whatever, whether heretofore prohibited or not, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding three years, or by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.'
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. State
...the charge of maintaining or keeping a gambling house. In an early case dealing with the second part of the statute, Ponder v. State, 76 Fla. 526, 80 So. 311 (1918), the Court cited with approval the language from McBride v. State mentioned above as to the purpose of this statute. The Court......
-
State v. Schell
...keeping of a house or other place for any manner of gaming or gambling. McBride v. State, 1897, 39 Fla. 442, 22 So. 711; Ponder v. State, 1919, 76 Fla. 526, 80 So. 311; Reinmiller v. State 1927, 93 Fla. 462, 111 So. 633; Kirk v. Morrison, 1933, 108 Fla. 144, 146 So. 215; Wilson v. State, 19......
-
Dunn v. State
...the law in the capacity of agent for another.' (Emphasis supplied.) There is no conflict in these two cases. In the case of Ponder v. State, 76 Fla. 526, text 528, 529, 80 So. 311, the Court had before it the identical statute now before the Court and held: 'that the statute applies to whoe......
-
Wilson v. State
...or loser of the amount wagered be a game prohibited by law or not.' See Reinmiller v. State, 93 Fla. 462, 111 So. 633; also Ponder v. State, 76 Fla. 526, 80 So. 311. third assignment of error is the order of the lower court overruling and denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The grou......