Robertson v. Porter

Decision Date16 February 1907
Docket Number76.
Citation57 S.E. 993,1 Ga.App. 223
PartiesROBERTSON, Sheriff, v. PORTER.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

The courts will not lend their aid to a suitor seeking to regain possession of implements of crime, designed for no other purpose than the violation of law or the injuring of the morals of the people.

An action in trover will not lie against a sheriff in favor of the keeper of a gaming house as to articles which were seized while being used in the operation of the gaming house, or while being kept for that purpose, and which are adaptable only to the purpose of such illegal and immoral occupation.

Error from City Court of Macon; John R. L. Smith, Judge pro hac vice.

Action by one Porter against one Robertson, as sheriff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Walter J. Grace, John P. Ross, and Claud Estes, for plaintiff in error.

Nottingham & McClellan, for defendant in error.

POWELL J.

Trover and bail was brought by Porter against Robertson, the sheriff of Bibb county, for the recovery of the possession of the following articles: "1 large oak table, with carved legs, worth $145; 1 roulette wheel, with complete appliances worth $400; 1 book maker's wheel, worth $150; 1 large walnut table, worth $60; 1 long oak table, with rounded corners, worth $90; 1 round oak table, worth $25; 5,000 composition discs or chips, worth $175; 1 cribbage or faro layout, $25; 1 glass layout for book maker's wheel, worth $40; 1 long pine table, worth $12; 1 lot playing cards, worth $10; and 1 lot dice, worth $5." The defendant answered and, without admitting plaintiff's ownership of the articles sued for, and after denying his right to the possession of said articles and to the recovery of the same set up the following allegations as a defense to the action brought:

"(6) And for further answer to said petition defendant shows that the personalty described in said petition was manufactured and sold for the purpose of being used in the maintenance of a gaming house and room, where persons would come together and play and bet for money and other valuable things at games and devices for the hazarding of money and other things of value, in the playing of which games and operating said devices said personalty was to be used. And much of said personalty, to wit, one roulette wheel and appliances, one book maker's wheel, one cribbage or faro layout, and one glass layout for book maker's wheel could not be used, and is unfit to be used for any other purpose than gaming purposes aforesaid. And defendant shows that at the time he took possession of said personalty, as hereinafter set forth, all of said personalty was being used in the maintenance of a gaming house and room in said county of Bibb, where persons were permitted, with the knowledge of the person maintaining said gaming house and room, to come together and play for money and other valuable things at games and devices for the hazarding of money and other things of value; and said personalty was used in the playing and operating of said games and devices for the hazarding of money and other things of value, and the said personalty had been so used in the maintenance of said gaming house and room and the operating of games and devices for the hazarding of money and other things of value, as aforesaid, continuously for a long time next preceding the date on which said personalty was seized by this defendant, as hereinafter stated. And defendant shows that said personalty was being used, as aforesaid, in the maintenance of a nuisance which tended to corrupt the public morals, which said nuisance was being maintained by and with the use of said personalty at the time said personalty was seized by defendant, and had been so used for a long time immediately preceding its seizure.
(7) And for further answer defendant shows that while said personalty was being used in the maintenance of a gaming house and room, and in the maintenance of a nuisance tending to corrupt the public morals, as alleged in the foregoing paragraph of this answer, it came to the knowledge of defendant that said personalty was being so used; and defendant, being then, as now, the sheriff of Bibb county, Georgia, seized and took possession of said personalty in the discharge of his duty as sheriff of said Bibb county, for the purpose of preventing the further unlawful maintenance of the gaming house and room, and for the purpose of abating the nuisance aforesaid. And defendant shows that said personalty was absolutely necessary to the maintenance of said gaming house and room and said nuisance, and that the seizure of said personalty and holding possession thereof, or destroying it, was necessary to prevent the further unlawful use of said property in the maintenance of a gaming room and house, and in order to abate the aforesaid nuisance, which was being maintained by and with the use of said personalty, and was the only way in which defendant, as sheriff of Bibb county, could abate said gaming room and house and nuisance. And defendant shows that by his seizure of said personalty and retaining possession thereof (all of which he did and has done in the discharge of his duty as sheriff of said Bibb county) he did abate said gaming house and room and said nuisance, to the maintenance of which gaming house and nuisance said personalty was then and there being used. And defendant shows that the destruction of said personalty or the retention of its possession by defendant and his successors in office is necessary to the continued abatement of said gaming house and nuisance, and that the recovery of said personalty by the plaintiff would enable plaintiff to re-establish, re-erect, and continue the aforesaid gaming house and nuisance, by and with the use of said personalty, or enable said plaintiff to erect and maintain a like gaming house and nuisance within the state of Georgia, contrary to the laws of said state, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof.
(8) And for further answer defendant shows that, when he seized said personalty as aforesaid, it was being used in the violation of the criminal laws of the state of Georgia, in the maintenance of a gaming house and room, and in the maintenance of a nuisance which tended to corrupt and did corrupt the public morals; and the recovery of said property is sought by the plaintiff so that said personalty may be used in the violation of the criminal laws of the state of Georgia, and in the maintenance of a nuisance tending to corrupt the public morals. Said personalty was manufactured for such purpose and use, and is unfit for any other purpose or use, and is not salable for any lawful use.
(9) And defendant shows that, by reason of all the facts hereinbefore alleged, the said plaintiff ought not to have and recover said personalty, and the courts of the state of Georgia ought not to lend their aid in the recovery of said personalty, so that it may again be put to the illegal and immoral uses and purposes aforesaid, in which it was being used when seized and taken possession of by defendant as aforesaid, and for which illegal and immoral uses and purposes it was manufactured and sold."

A demurrer was interposed by the plaintiff to defendant's answer, and particularly to the paragraphs set forth above in substance as follows: (1) Said answer shows no sufficient legal reason why plaintiff should not have and recover of defendant the property in dispute in that the same sets up no sufficient facts which should defeat plaintiff's said right of recovery. (2) Specially demurring to paragraph 6 of said answer, plaintiff submits that said paragraph contains no such statement of fact as would defeat or tend to defeat plaintiff's said right of action or his right of recovery in said suit. (3) Further, that even though it be true that said personal property was manufactured, sold, and used for the purpose of gaming and conducting a gaming business, such state of facts affords no legal reason why defendant should seize and hold the same, and constitutes no valid legal reason why plaintiff should not have and recover the same of defendant. (4) That the same shows no such state of facts as in law would justify defenda...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT