The Monticellonian., 1904-01-28
Burning Order Sustained.

The state supreme court has af- 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 R. A. Furth ys. The State appealed from Pulaski chaacery court On June G. 1903, 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 lant Furth filed a 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 tae 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 5oiAipAAAitS tobitos anu tttdt iHty "Cit 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- tion was oyerruled and he was con- pelled by 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 eriminate him. he might decline to an swer it, and he objected to testifying, and his objection being oyerrulcd he excepted
 The appellant moved for a jury trial, that the issues be tried by a jury. which was denied. and he ex- cepted The issues were dtermined by the court for the appellee. The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. and ne excepted and appealed to this court. He gave bond and obtained super sedeas
 The objection that there is revers- 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 tenable. We think, for the fol- lowing reasons:
 Tt 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 161S and 1619 of the statute are unconstitutional, be- cause they are uncertain and ambigu- out. We do not consider this objec- ton sound. These sections read as follows:
 Section 1918, Sandels & Hill's D- gest. says: It 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 a search for such gambling tables or devices here inbefore mentioned or referred to, and directing that, on finding any such, they shall be publicly burned hy the officer executing the warrant
 Though the meaning of this sec ton might have been made plainer by more particularity 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 fculty in determining what it means. and its objection on account of uncer- tainty is not sustained Section 1919 only provides for the fees of the of ticcr executing the warrant to be paid by the person keeping such gambling devices. in case they are adjudged to Ge burned There is no uncertainty in this section.
 We do not think these sections re- pealed by what is known as the Will 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 : } amount to repeal, CT that the leg islature intended by the latter to re peal the former act.