State v. Flint
| Decision Date | 06 July 1893 |
| Citation | 28 A. 28 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. FLINT. |
Appeal from court of common pleas, New Haven and Fairfield counties; Walsh, Judge.
Prosecution of Harry J. Flint for keeping a place for playing in and conducting and carrying on the game of "policy," contrary to ordinance. From a judgment of the court of criminal appeals affirming a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
S. Judson, Jr., for appellant.
J. Chamberlain and W. B. Grover, for the State.
By section 2573 of the General Statutes "the court of common council of any city" has "power to make, alter, and repeal ordinances or by-laws to suppress and punish all kinds of gambling and gaming, pool selling, policy playing, lottery dealing, bucket-shop business, and the staking or deposit of money or collaterals for the same on margins or otherwise against a rise or fall in the markets of the price of stocks, bonds, or merchandise, and to prevent idlers and persons without apparent employment from enticing persons into places where gambling of any kind is carried on." After this enactment the court of common council of the city of Bridgeport made the following ordinance: "Every person, whether as principal, agent or servant, who shall manage, or have any interest in the keeping or managing of, any place or shop for the purpose in whole or in part of playing, conducting or carrying on, or of allowing any other person or persons to play, conduct or carry on, the game, business or scheme commonly known as policy; or who shall write, transfer, sell or deliver, or buy in whole or in part, any of the slips, tickets, tokens or chances used in or connected with such game, business or scheme of policy; or who shall in any other way knowingly take any part whatever in such game, business or scheme of policy, or in any part thereof—shall be lined not more than one hundred dollars." It was assigned by the defendant, as a cause of demurrer to a complaint against him, brought under this ordinance, that section 2573 does not create or define the offense alleged in the complaint, nor prescribe a penalty, nor make the acts charged a criminal offense, nor give power to courts or common council to make them such; but that this section is a sufficient authority for the enactment of city ordinances to suppress and punish "policy playing," and that that phrase is one in such current use as to need no statutory definition, was determined in the case of State v. Carpenter, 60 Conn. 97, 102, 22 Atl. 497. A further cause of demurrer was that the acts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tucker
...and once through an agency, to prosecute for the same act. This view finds expression in State v. Welch, 36 Conn. 215; State v. Flint, 63 Conn. 248, 28 A. 28; v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N.W. 1124, 4 L. R. A. 751; United States v. Perez, 3 Hawaii U.S. Dist. Rep. 295; United States v. Coll......
-
State v. Carr
... ... There was sufficient evidence of the real character of the place for the court reasonably to conclude, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Carr was guilty of keeping a gaming house. See State v. Flint, 63 Conn. 248, ... 250, 28 A. 28; State v. Anderson, 82 Conn. 111, 114, 72 A. 648; State v. Gaetano, 96 Conn. 306, 318, 114 A. 82, 15 A.L.R. 458 ... There was no claim in the brief, nor was it pointed out in argument, that there was an infringement of the rights of the defendants ... ...
-
State v. Fico
...municipal ordinances enacted under the authority of chapter 78 of the Public Acts of 1881. See State v. Carpenter, supra; State v. Flint, 63 Conn. 248, 250, 28 A. 28. Pool selling is regarded as the more serious. This is reflected in the penalties imposed in the two statutes. In State v. Sc......