State v. Sellner
| Decision Date | 17 March 1885 |
| Citation | 17 Mo.App. 39 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. ANTON SELLNER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, NOONAN, J.
Reversed and the defendant discharged.
J. W. COLLINS, for the appellant.
J. R. CLAIBORNE, for the respondent.
This is a proceeding on information under section 1567, Revised Statutes, 1879, which subjects any one who sells, or aids or assists in selling, or is in anywise concerned in the sale of a lottery ticket, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.
The defendant was tried in the court below, found guilty of the offence charged in the information, and sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred dollars. The main complaint made by him here, is that the evidence was legally insufficient to warrant his conviction.
The information charges defendant with the sale of a certain lottery ticket, in a certain lottery and device in the nature of a lottery known as “Policy” at the price of twenty-five cents, whereby certain property of great value, to-wit: eight dollars, was to be disposed of by lot or chance. The sufficiency of the form of the information has heretofore been adjudged by this court in State v. Hindman (4 Mo. App. 582), and State v. McWilliams (7 Mo. App. 99); and is conceded by defendant.
The evidence offered on behalf of the state clearly established that the defendant did sell, or did aid in selling, at the date mentioned in the information, for the price of twenty-five cents, a certain ticket or slip of paper containing the figures 9, 33 and 9,-30,-33 upon it; and also that on the same day a book was found in defendant's possession containing the following entries in defendant's handwriting: 9,-33,-5, and 9,-33,-30,-20. There is absolutely no evidence, however, showing or tending to show that the ticket thus bought entitled the purchaser to any chance in any property to be disposed of, of the value of eight dollars or of any value. There is no evidence from which the jury were legally warranted to draw the conclusion that any drawing or disposition of property by chance was intended; and while some of the witnesses do testify that they do understand “policy,” and that they have played policy before, they fail to communicate their understanding of the word to either court or jury, and fail to state what playing at policy means, or whether or no policy is a species of lottery, or whether this transaction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Wulfing
...Rhodes v. Farish, 16 Mo. App. 430; Leary v. People's Railroad Co., 16 Mo. App. 561; Pfau v. Breitenburger, 17 Mo. App. 20; The State v. Sellner, 17 Mo. App. 39; The State v. Bruner, 17 Mo. App. 274; Birtwhistle v. Woodward, 17 Mo. App. 277; Tobin v. McCann, 17 Mo. App. 481; Thompson v. Bron......
-
City of Toledo v. Johnson
...I do not know what the expression means,' and held it must be proven. State v. Russell, 17 Mo.App. 16. See to the same effect, State v. Sellner, 17 Mo.App. 39. In 'policy' and 'lottery,' 'bucketshops' and 'margins' appear in the statutes, along with many other definite names as being gambli......
-
State v. Bruner
...on it.” This is substantially the same sort of testimony that was given for the state in State v. Russell (17 Mo.App. 16), and State v. Sellner (17 Mo.App. 39), decided by this court at the present term. We held in those cases that there was a total failure of proofs to sustain the several ......
-
State v. Rothschild
...between the evidence upon which he was convicted, and that in the cases of The State v. Russell (17 Mo. App. 16), and The State v. Sellner (17 Mo. App. 39), in which this court held that the testimony in either case was insufficient to convict. But the attempted parallel fails. While it is ......