The Newark journal., 1904-02-05
Burning Order Sustained.

IN 2AttbN CAi I'ltIllC bOdl lltlS 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 vs. The State, appealed from Pulaski chan eery 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. Appellant Furth filed a sworn petition 10 be allowed to intervene, claiming lack of jurisdiction on the part of the circuit judge. The courts opinion follows:
 ''Thc 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 a witness and objected, and refused to testify on the ground that his evidence might tend to criminate him, but his ob- iection was oYerruIed, and he was compelled 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 question, the answer to which would tend to eriminate him, he might de- cline to answer it, and he objected to testifying, and his objection be- ing oyerruled he excepted.
 "Thc appellant moved for a jury trial, that the issues be tried by d jury, which was denied, and he eX- cepted. The issues were determined by the court for the appeIle The appellant filed a motion for d new trial, which was overrHIed, and he excepted and appealed 10 this court. He gave bond and obtained d super sedcas.
 "The objection tat there is re- versaI error in thc courts oyerrul- ing the objection of the appellant to giving testimony in the case on the ground that 1t might tend to eliminate him Is not tenable, we think, for the following reasons:
 1t does not appear to us that tho testimony he gave would tend in fact to crininate him.
 "The appellant contends that the act providing for this proceeding is void. because sections 1G18 and 1919 of the statute are unconstitutional, because they are uncertain and ann biguous. We do not consider this objection sound. These sections read as follows:
 Section 1618. Sandels X Hills Digest, says; 1t is hereby made and declared 10 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 in- formation given or on their own knowledge. or where they have req sonable ground to suspect, that they issue their warrant 10 some peace of- fcer. directing in such warrant q search for such gambling tables or devices hcreinbefore mentioned or referred to, and directing that, on finding any such. they shall be pub Gely burned by the officer executing the warrant.
 '.Thoush the meaning of this sec ton might.h have been made palmer, more particularly in the use of language, 1t is easily understood by any one who does not search to mis- understand, and the court has no difficulty in determining what it means, and this objection on ac- count of uncertainty is not sustained Section 1919 only provides for the fees of the officer executing the war rant 10 be paid hN the nerson keen-