The Van Buren press. [volume] (Van Buren, Ark.) 1859-1914, 1904-01-30
Burning Order Sustained.


firmed the constitutionality of the
law authorizing the seizure and de
struction of gaming devices. The
case in which this decree was made
was that of X. A. Furth VS.. The State,
appealed from Pulaski chancery
court On June 6, 1903, the sheriff,
upon affidavit made before Judge
Lea, seized several tables in Furth's
place Of business, and the same was
ordered burned by the court Appel
liant Furth filed sworn petition to
be allowed to intervene, claiming
lack Of jurisdiction on the part of the
circuit Judge The courts opinion
follows;
The testimony Of witnesses was
as to the character and use made of
the property and We think that it
was clearly shown that the articles
seized, being two tables, were gam
ing tables; that they had been used
and kept and were used and kept as
gambling tables, and that they were
Of but little value or use except as
gambling devices, The appellant,
Furth, was sworn as witness and
objected, and refused to testify on
the ground that his evidence might
tend to criminatc him, but his objec
ton was overruled and he was com
PEELED 10y order of the court to answer
questions propounded by the court,
the court stating to him at the time
that if he asked him any questions,
the answer to which would tend to
criminate him. he might decline to an
swer it, and he objected to testifying,
and his objection being oyerruled he
excepted
"The appellant moved for a jury
trial that the issues be tried by
jury, which was denied, and he eX-
cepted. The issues were determined
by the court for the appellee. The
appellant filed a motion for a new
trial which was oyerruled, and he
excepted and appealed to this court.
lie gave bond and obtained a super
aCdcas.
The objection that there is reyers.
al error in the courts oyerruing the
objection Of the appellant to giving
testimony in the case on the ground
that it might tend to crminate him
is not tenable, we think, for the fol.
lowing reasons:
1T does not appear to us that the
testimony he gave would tend in fact
TO criminate him
The appellant contends that the
act providing for this proceeding is
void because sections 1918 and 1919 OF
the statute are unconstitutional, be.
cause they are uncertain and ambigU.
out, We do no; consider this objoc
ton sound. These sections read as
follows:
Section 1918, Sandols & Hill's hi.
gost, says; 1T is hereby made and
declared to be the duty and required
Of the judges Of the supreme court
the judges of the circuit courts and
Of the justices Of the peace, on infor.
nation given or on their own knowl.
edge, or where they have reasonable
ground to suspect that they issue
their warrant TO some peace officer
directing in such warrant search for
such gambling tables or devices here.
inbcforc mentioned or referred to
and directing that. on finding any
such, they shall be publicly burned
by the officer executing the warrant
Though the meaning of this sec.
tion might have been made palmer
by moro particularly in the use of
language, it Is easily understood by
any one who does not search TO mis-.
understand, and the court has no diff
nculty in determining what It means,
and It's objection on account Of unccr'
tainty Is not sustained, Section 1913
only provides for the fees Of the of.
ncor executing the warrant to be paid
by the person keeping such gambling
devices, in case they are adjudgcd to
be burned There Is no uncertainty
in this section
1--WE do not think these sections re.
pcalcd by what Is known as the WI
son act We do not think the two
acts inconsistent or that the Wilson
act covers the entire subject matter
of those sections IN such manner a.
TO amount to repeal or that the leg
lslaturo intended by the latter TO re-.
peal the former act.