The Forrest City times., 1904-01-29
Burning Order Sustained.

49, ''ttiiDi iHiiiS NilG S6lLllIe anu NP-
struction of gaming devices. The
case in which this decree was made
was that Of r. A. Furth vs.. The State.
appealed from Pulaski chancery
court. On June 6, 1908. the sheriff.
upon affidavit made before Judge
Lea, seized several tables in Furths
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 Dat little value or use except as
gambling devices. The appellant,
Furth, was sworn as a witness and
objected, and refused to testify on
the ground that his evidence might
tend to criminate him, but his objec-
tiGn was overrGled, and he vas com
PEELED by order of the court 10 answer
questions propounded by the court,
the court stating to him at the time
/ that if he asked him any questions,
the answer 10 which would tend To
cr!minate him he might decline to an
sWer il, and he objected 10 tastifying
and his objection being oyerruled he
excepted.
The appellant moved for jury
trial, that the issues be tried by a
jury. which was denied, and he eX-
eepted. The issues were determined
b. the court for the appellee The
appellant filed a motion for a new
trial, which was oyerruled. and ne
excepted and appealed to this court.
lie gave bond and obtained a super
geaeas.
The objection that there is reyers-
al error in the courts overruling the
objection of the appellant to giving
testimony in the case on the ground
that it might tend to criminate him
is not tenabe we think for the fol-
lowing reasons:
1t does not appear to us that the
testimony he gave would tend in fact
10 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 not consider this objec
tion sound. These sections read as
follows:
Section 1918, Sandels & Hills Di-
gest, 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
inbefOre mentioned or referred tC.
and directing that. on finding any
such they shall be publicly burned
by the officer executing the warrant.
Though the meaning of this sec.
ton might have been made palmer
by more 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
ficulty in determining what il means.
and its objection on account of uncer-
tainty is not sustained Section 1919
only provides for the fees of the of
ficer executing the warrant to be paid
by the person keeping such gambling
devices in case they are adjudged to
be burned. There is no uncertainty
in this section.
I'VE DO not think these sections re-
pealed by what is known as the vii
son act We do not think the two
acts inconsistent, or that the Wilson
act covers the entire subject matter
of these sections in such manner as
to amount to repeal or that the leg
islature intended by the latter to re
peal the former act