Stevens v. State, 39760
| Decision Date | 10 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39760,39760 |
| Parties | Willie STEVENS v. STATE of Mississippi, by Julian P. Alexander, District Attorney, et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Travis & Moore, Jackson, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., By Wm. E. Cresswell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was adjudged in contempt of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County upon a charge that he violated a temporary injunction granted by said court enjoining and restraining him 'from operating or carrying on any kind of gaming, gambling device or any violation of the gambling laws of this State.' He was fined $1,000 and costs. He prosecutes this appeal from the decree entered against him in the court below.
The order granting the temporary injunction was issued on March 31, 1954. On October 26, 1954, the district attorney and county attorney filed in the name of the State of Mississippi in the aforesaid court a petition praying that the appellant be cited for contempt for violating the aforesaid temporary injunction. The petition alleged that in violation of the injunction the appellant exhibited in his place of business, known as Stevens Restaurant, coin operated slot machines displayed for public use and that said slot machines had been continuously displayed subsequent to the issuance of the said temporary injunction. The appellant was duly cited and appeared to the petition and filed a motion for a continuance, a demurrer to the petition, and a motion to quash the petition, all of which were overruled. The appellant then filed an answer to the petition denying the material allegations thereof.
On the hearing the only proof was that introduced by the appellee. The appellant offered no proof. At the conclusion of the evidence, the chancellor made the following finding:
'From the evidence presented here this morning the court finds that the defendant, Willie Stevens, has in violation of this order heretofore entered by the court violated the gambling laws of the state by exhibiting for public use two or more slot machines in the place of business described in the injunction; that such display of such gambling devices in the defendant's place of business constitutes a violation of the order heretofore entered by the court and that such violation was wilful, and contemptuous, from which the court concludes that the defendant, Willie Stevens, is in contempt of this court, and for such contempt will be sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.'
The appellant assigns only two grounds for the reversal of the decree of the court below, which are as follows: (1) The court erred in overruling the motion to quash the citation for contempt; and (2) the decree of the chancery court holding the appellant guilty of contempt is not supported by the evidence and is manifestly wrong.
It is the contention of the appellant that his motion to quash the citation for contempt should have been sustained for the reason that the petition failed to allege the date on which the alleged contemptuous act occurred and that thus the appellant was not fully apprised of the violation charged. The petition for citation for contempt alleged that after the issuance of the temporary injunction the appellant exhibited in his place of business known as Stevens Restaurant coin operated slot machines displayed for public use, and that the same had been continuously displayed subsequent to the issuance of the temporary injunction. In view of this allegation, it immediately becomes apparent that the contention of the appellant that the petition should have alleged that date on which the alleged violation occurred is without merit. The allegation that the slot machines were continuously displayed by the appellant in his place of business fully apprised the appellant of the violation with which he was charged. The motion to quash was, therefore, properly overruled.
The appellant next contends that the findings and order of the chancellor are not supported by the testimony. The position of the appellant is that the proceeding now under review is in the nature of a criminal proceeding and that appellant's guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and he finds support in this position in the cases of Magee v. State, 96 Miss. 83, 54 So. 802, and Evans v. Evans, 193 Miss. 468, 9 So.2d 641. We are of the opinion, however, that the proof, which is undisputed, establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the chancellor was amply warranted in so finding. The only proof was that introduced by the appellee. It showed that witnesses visited the appellee's night club on the night of July 12, 1954 and that the appellant met them at the door and admitted them, and that the appellant had on display in his night...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myers
...enjoining persons from operating a common nuisance under one or more of the common nuisance statutes of this State. Stevens v. State, 225 Miss. 48, 83 So.2d 645; Murphy v. State, 202 Miss. 890, 32 So.2d 875, 33 So.2d 786; Warren v. State, 231 Miss. 343, 95 So.2d 237; State ex rel. Hawkins, ......
-
MISSISSIPPI GAMING COM'N v. Henson
...mere possession of an illegal gambling device, such as a slot machine, is enough for a violation of the above statute. Stevens v. State, 225 Miss. 48, 82 So.2d 645 (1955); Clark v. Holden, 191 Miss. 7, 2 So.2d 570 (1941).1 The operative term, however, is not defined in the statute, and so w......
-
Trainer v. State
...process rights, this question is not properly before us to resolve. ¶ 17. The trial court in today's case relied on Stevens v. State, 225 Miss. 48, 82 So.2d 645 (1955) and Clark v. Holden, 191 Miss. 7, 2 So.2d 570 (1941) to support that the mere possession of an illegal gambling device, suc......