The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-05-02
Drau-Poker I'm Court.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF Al
PEALs N THE PRESTON NUCK0Ls CASE
NEW TRIAL, GRANTED IcCI,SED '~.. VI.


PEALs IN THE PRESTON SUCKOLs CASE
NEW TRIAL GRANTED ACCUSED. 5a.....
In the Supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day Judge Moncure delivered the unani-
nous opinion in the case Of Preston Muck.
OILS. convicted in the Hastings Court OF
Richmond OF a violation OF the gaming
laws. Whether draw-poker is q game akin
to faro or keno was the main question-the
other four bills OF exception. did not hold
good. 1t was quite amusing to hear the
venerable President OF the court, in discuss
b,g the facts proved, speak OF the draw" :"
flush," "two pairs" &C., in describing
the game. Nuckols kent q room for the
convenience of poker players, and furnish
ed the '.chips," tables, and other conve-
niences.
In concluding the opinion Judge Mon.
cure said:
THE GAME
proved to have been PLAYED in this case was
certainly not one Of the games specified in
the statute. lCode, page 1912, chapter 1914.
section ~ 1t was not u keeping or eXbibi-
ton "oi a gaming-table commonly known
as 4 B c or 4 0 table. or faro-bank, or
keno table," And If the case comes within
the terms, intent. or meaning OF the statute,
it can only be because the game proved TO
have been played in this case was the keep
lug or exhibition OF table of the like kind
with those specified in the said statute
Was it q case OF the like kind as afore-
said? In what docs the likeness consist
The record does not show. Can the ac-
cused be said to have been Il keeper or eX-
hbitor OF
A GAMTNG-TABLE
In the meaning Of the statute? He may
have owned or had an interest i'm the tables
on which the game was played. He took
no part in playing the game; was not always
present while it was played, and had no in
tercSt in it except that he had chance to
receive portion Of the winnings under an
agreement with the parties 10 the game to
him for The use OF the house
aud the tables which were used in carrying
on the game. The amount received under
this agreement does not appear, so far as is
disclosed by the record, to have been eX-
travagant compensation for such use; but
whether so or not, does not seem to affect
the question we are now considering. The
game played in this case was pocre, [Sic) or
DRAw-POcRE.
In regard to what is q table Of the like
kind with those specified in the statute ac-
there are two decisions Of this court which
seem to settle the matter beyond all contro-
vcrSy. They are The Commonwealth Us.
Wyatt, Rand, TO, decided in 1923, and
Hul's case, IA Graft, GAS, decided in 1858.
THE Judge here gives the substance OF each
Of those decisions.]
These two cases clearly show that the
game proved to have been played in this
case was not game OF the like kind with
my OF those specified in The statute, as it
was clearly not one OF the games speci-
fed.
TIE COURT is THEREFORE
Of the opinion that the said Hastings Court
erred in overruing the motion OF the prlS-
oner to set aside the verdict because the
same was contrary to the evidence, and
grant him new trial as mentioned in the
iith bill OF exceptions. And for that cause
.hc said judgment is reversed, the said ver-
diet set aside, and the cause reminded to
he said Huslin Court for new trial TO
DC had therein in conformity with the fore
going opinion.
Nuckols's sentence was TO pay fine OF
800 and go to the chain-gaDg for six
months. He has already had two trials. 1t
IS thought by some that noHe proSeQui
will now be entered in his case.