The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1888-10-16
TO DECIsIONSOF THB
Hb,naEuE COURT OF FLORIDA.
vnne Term, A. ID. 1888.

Z lIorocnts. devices or apparatus commonly
ImpaG n Games of chance usually played In gam
useu houses, or by gamblers, are found in any
olins room, booth, shelter or other place, it
han he primo tHse evidence that the SAID house,
sna n, or place where the same are found is kept
i -. the purpose OF gambling" is not unconstu
tions. .....:o,;,u &c .ho oho,,o ooo.;o,, ;,
;mnaired bv other sections of the same stat
nos Iassuming the latter to be unconstiutionaD
a'e, il the duty of the Sheriff other police
n us;cer 10 seize the implements and have them
onhI;clv destroyed in the street in the presence
~ illnesses, and authorizing any Sheriff, City
oi,shal or Chief of Police to enter, forciby il
'"ooSsary. and without written warrant, any
Souse or other place in which he may have good
l0oonn 10 believe that gambling is being carried
~ ~ and arrest any persons violating the act
The former provision or section is entirely indie
nendent Of the latter sections, and it cannot be
peld that the Legislature would not have adopted
The former without the latter
Where certain provisions of statute are in
80 wise practically involved in the case under
consideration their constiluIiohality VIII not DC
The effect of section Of the statute, as set
ont above. is to authorize the jury to infer from
,he nroof of the finding of such implements, de-
Zoos or apparatus that the room they were
found IN was kept for the purpose of gambling,
rhere there is nothing in the attendant circum-
o,ance or in any of the evidence in the case, rails
iug in their minds reasonable doubt to the con-
tray.
nroof of such finding the further effect Of prina
f1ie proof of the actual use of the instruments
az another and independent evidence that the
house, room or other place is kept for the pur-
nose of gambling.
6 If there is nothing in the testimony Of the
State or @! the defence to control the presump
tim which the statutes authorizes to be drawn
by the Jury from the proof OF the fact Of the find
inc they may infer from the proof of such fact
that the room or house was kept for the pur-
nose of gambling, but if there is any evidence
whatever bearing upon the point OF whether or
not the implements were actually used for the
purpose of gambling the jury are to consider it
and give TO it such weight as in their judgment
is naturally entitled TO.
T. The purpose of the first section Of the stat
ute, in so far as it applies to having, keeping
exercising maintaining gaming room, or a
house, or other place for the purpose of gaming
or gambling, is to punish the person whose es-
adjustment, or enterprise, or Business the gam
bling house is, whether he operate or manage ii
in pcrson or" by himself" or do so by a servant,
clerk agent, or in in any other manner; and
the object of the second section is to punish any
one acting as the servant, clerk, agent or en-
Grating or managing the house or other place for
the purpose of gambling.
g. In prosecution under the first section, the
Jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that the defendant is the person whose estab
ment or business the gambling room is, but
proof SHOULD there be such) that there was an
arrangement between the defendant and his
agent managing the business for him, by which
as one of the terms Of his employment the latter
lofa trf1f ha inn f 10
business in the room and to use his own Judg-
ment as to preventing persons from playing
would not of itself defeat a conviction and 1t
was consequently not error TO refuse to charge
the jury that they must be satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendant had the
control or arrangement of the room, that Is, he
could regulate and control what was done there
and could have prevented the person or persons
from playing, if he had seen fit to do So
8. Where an instruction embodying both a
correct and an incorrect proposition OF law Is
requested, it is not error to refuse TO give IL.
10 1t is not error TO refuse to give an instruc-
ton 10 the jury when the substance OF 1t is con
tanned in a charge already given them.
II. 1t is not error to refuse to charge jury
that The legal presumption Of innocence is TO be
regarded by the jury as matter OF evidence,
where they have been charged that the law pre-
sumes every man innocent until he is proven
guilty by proper legal evidence and if they have
any reasonable doubt as 10 the guilt of the de-
PENDANT arising from the evidence, they should
acqult him
~ Where the testimony is clearly sufficient
to sustain the verdict and it is evident that no
injury could have been sustained by an error in
an instruction given to the jury, the verdict will
not be disturbed
Affirmed.
Harlridge & Young for Plaintiff in Error.
Attorney General for Defendant in Error.
Jesse Robinson and Anthony Williams, Pam
tiffs in Error, vs. The State of Florida, Deien-
dant in Error-Alachuac county
MITCHELL j:
L1rccny Of Domestic animal.
l. Plaintiff in errors counsel requested the court
10 instruct the Jury Ii you believe from the
evidence that there Is question OF the ownersh p
of this hog, no matter how slight II may be be-
tween Joseph Rowe and Peggy Mitchell you
must find for the defendants" was properly re
fused. 1t was too broad.
9. A charge that if the jury believe from the
evidence that the defendants killed the hog IN
question: honestly believing at the time that II
to Rowe, they committed no onense
against the laws of this state, would have been
correct.
3. When there is conflicting evidence it is the
duty of The Jury if possible, 10 reconcile the con
flici, and after doing so if the defendant is con
victed, and there is evidence sustaining the yer
diet and there is no question as to the credl
bility of the witnesses, and there is nothing &c
show that the jury were influenced by any i'm
proper motive this court will not set the verdict
aside.
The court will not reverse the finding of the
jury upon question of fact, unless the verdic
is 50 clearly and maniestly against the weigh
of evidence as to suggest the presumption tina
it was produced by influences other than
proper consideration OF the testimony.
Affirmed.
s. y. Finley for Plaintiff in Error; Attorney
General for Defendant in Error.