Toll v. State
| Citation | 40 Fla. 169,23 So. 942 |
| Parties | TOLL v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1898 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to criminal court of record, Duval county; John L. Doggett Judge.
Albert C. Toll was convicted of keeping a gaming house, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. A judgment of conviction on an information based upon the first clause of section 2644, Rev. St., relating to persons who have, keep, exercise, and maintain gaming rooms, will not be reversed because upon the trial the court instructed the jury that the information was brought under that section, reading it in full to them, including the last clause, relating to persons who procure, suffer, or permit others to play for money in places under their control, where all of the other instructions of the court relate solely to the keeping of a gaming room, and none of them intimated to the jury that they could convict upon proof that defendant procured, suffered or permitted persons to play for money in any place under his control.
2. Where the substance of proposed instructions, so far as applicable to the facts of the case, is fully covered by other instructions given by the court, there is no error in refusing those proposed.
3. Upon the trial of an information charging a continuing offense where there is evidence of acts constituting the offense committed within the period laid in the information, evidence of acts committed prior or subsequent to that period, and before the filing of the information, is admissible when it illustrates, explains, or corroborates evidence of acts shown to have been committed whithin the period charged.
4. Any room is a gaming room in which games for money are habitually played, or which is kept or maintained for the purpose of gaming, even though the room may be put to other uses, and even though its principal use is for some other lawful object.
A. M. Michelson, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the criminal court of record of Duval county upon an information charging 'that one Albert C. Toll, of the county of Duval and state of Florida, on the 1st day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, and on divers days and dates between said date and the 9th day of August, A. D. 1897, in the county and state aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously have, keep, exercise, and maintain a gaming room and gaming house, in the city of Jacksonville, for the purpose of gaming and gambling, contrary,' etc. The information was filed August 24, 1897, and the trial was begun September 2, 1897.
The trial judge began his instructions to the jury by stating that 'the information in this case is brought under a section of our statutes which reads as follows, to wit.' He thereupon read section 2644, Rev. St., in the following language: 'Whoever by himself, his servant, clerk or agent, or in any other manner has, keeps, exercises or maintains a gaming table or room, or gaming implements or apparatus, or house, booth, tent, shelter or other place for the purpose of gaming or gambling, or 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.' It is argued that the court erred in reading the latter clause of the section relating to persons who procure, suffer, or permit others to play for money in places under their control, because defendant was not charged with a violation of that clause, but of the clause relative to keeping rooms for the purpose of gaming. At defendant's request, the court instructed the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parshall v. State
...such as being used as a bedroom in the hotel, and the law applicable to the question was aptly given in the court's charge. Toll v. State, 40 Fla. 169, 23 South. 942; State v. Eaton, 85 Me. 237, 27 Atl. 126; State v. Masley, 53 Mo. App. 571; Smith v. State, 52 Ala. 384; Ulsamer v. State, 11......
-
Perlman v. State, 71-824
...The disjunctive nature of this statute was recognized in Vanderhorst v. State, 1942, 151 Fla. 620, 10 So.2d 138, 140, and Toll v. State, 1898, 40 Fla. 169, 23 So. 942. The informations in the present case are sufficient only to charge each defendant with maintaining a place for purposes of ......
-
State v. Kaukos
...in the information for the purpose of explaining the character of the use and the purpose for which it was used. See, also, Toll v. State, 40 Fla. 169, 23 So. 942; Parshall v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 177, 138 S.W. People v. O'Malley, 52 A.D. 46, 64 N.Y.S. 843. The conclusion to which we have ......
-
Ferguson v. State
...59 So.2d 59 (Fla.1952); Millman v. State, 55 So.2d 713 (Fla.1951); Creash v. State, 131 Fla. 111, 179 So. 149 (1938); Toll v. State, 40 Fla. 169, 23 So. 942 (1898). This Court has also recognized that a defendant might be charged under this statute in separate counts for maintaining or keep......