Case ID: pr_28/html/0215-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Wolf", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Avenau, Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of Ponce in a Prosecution for Violation of Section 300 of the Penal Code. ,,.
    No. 1485.
    Decided March 29, 1920.
    Gaming — Construction of Law. — The charge that the defendant, whose hams is Ornz Avenau, permitted a prohibited game to be played “in a restaurant-of Cruz Avenau’’ is the same as charging that he permitted it in .a house, owned by him. The word "house” used in section 300 of the Penal Cods' is a generic term to include practically every enclosure where men máyí assemble and sit down, especially if it has a roof over it. A restaurant- is. only a special instance of a house.
    Id. — Evidence—Appeal.—Although the evidence is contradictory, if that for -filie' prosecution tends to establish a prima facie case that a prohibited game was: being conducted in a house of the defendant and that the defendant was., extracting a profit from the game, in order that the Supreme Conrt may interfere with the weighing of the evidence by the trial court it is necessary to show that the court was influenced by prejudice, passion or partiality,, or committed manifest error.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. L. Tormes for the appellant.
    
      Mr. J. E. Figueras, Fiscal, for tbe appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

Cruz Avenau was found guilty of the offense- denounced in section 300 of the Penal Code, namely, “of permitting a prohibited game to be played, conducted or dealt in any' house owned by such person,” and he appealed. He now maintains, first, that the complaint failed to state a public offense inasmuch as the game took place in a cafetín of Cruz Avenau, whereas the statute requires that the game must have been played or conducted “in a house owned or rented” by a person. The use of the preposition “of” (“de”) sufficiently describes the ownership in the absence of an application for further specification. “House” as used in section 300 is a generic term to include practically every enclosure where men may assemble and sit down, especially if it has a roof over it. A cafetín is only a special instance of a house. The word “cafetín,” as used in Porto Eico, means practically any small .place where refreshments or the like are sold. The complaint was sufficient. The second ground of error relates to the evidence.

The proof is not very strong, but a policeman testified that he found a game of monte going on and saw a rake-off being extracted and put into a pot where there was other money. Pie surprised the players. It is true that he had no great opportunity to watch many plays, but he was allowed to state without objection (except as to its not being the best proof) that some of the players had been arrested and convicted. The convictions were brought out in the examination of the defense without objection. The proof in opposition was that a game of dominoes was being played and that the 29 cents that the policeman seized was not a rake-off, but change from a dollar for refreshments. Although contradicted, there was a prima facie case that a prohibited game was being conducted from which the defendant was extracting a profit and that such prohibited game was being conducted in a bouse of defendant and appellant.

The judgment must be

Affirmed.

• Chief Justice Hernandez and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.