Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1906-02-21
JUDGE sLOAN'S RULINGS IN THE
HOOVER CASE.
(From Wednesdays Dnily.)

owing 10 the different interpreter
,ions placed upon the rulings aud re-.
marks made 10y Judge Sloan in dispos
ing Of the habcas corpus matter in the
case Of j. -. Hoover of jerome, the
journal Miner herewith presents yer
batim report of the proceedings after
eliminating the Arguments of opposing
counsel, which are designated In the
following M Interruptions.
by the Court - should say that soc
'ion ! IN to he construed ~ an attempt
10 prohibit the carrying on ~ any
gambling game in the town Of jerome.
n il not restricting. nor IN there an at
tempt TO rest rict the maintenance or
operation Of gambling houses, and to
that extent IT IN broader and goes he.
yond any grant of power to the mum
cipal authorities under subdivision Is
of paragraph ji5 Of the revised sta
tu'cs. being the clause which reads:
'To license, tax and regulate billiard
tables and ball alleys; 10 license, tax.
regulate. suppress or prohibit gambling
houses. bawdy houses, and other disor-
DERBY houses, and to punish the keepers
and inmates thereof. -
Interruption.
was about 10 express some doubt
ms to whether the ordinance in that re-
Lx. ..N
municipal authorities 10 enact.
Interruption.
To the extent that it seeks 10 regulate
the operation or running of n gambling
game, and not 10 regulate. suppress or
prohibit IL. the maintenance or keeping
Of gambling house.
The ordinance seems to transcend
and 20 beyond the grant of power 20
regulate, suppress or prohibit gamb.
ling houses" II might, incidentally,
effect what you say could be done un-
der this section. but there might not
bc any such ease arise, and all the
eases which might arise would be- Of
persons operating games who were not
the owners Of houses or rooms even, but
some temporary occupants. John Doe
and open up game without permission,
then close his game and walk out
again.
Interruption.
The question is. could nh ofTensc Ice
made Of his act that could possibly be
held to be- n regulation. suppression or
prohibition Of n gambling housc' u
seems to me not.
Interruption and discussion.
We ARE not passing upon tho qncs
ton whether this petitioner Is guilty 81
an ofYense. but whether he is guilty Of
nm ofYensc under this ordinance. II In
important to know whether section I IL
the part Of the act which he In charged
with violating or some other.
Interruption.
I have no doubt, not withstanding the
general policy Of the legislature in the
matter ~ licensing gambling, that n
town council may regulate. possibly 10
the extent Of prohibiting, w FAR rs
the practical effects go, Of gambling,
By passing an ordinance regulating
gambling houses, how they shall be con
Quoted and under what circumstances,
and nll that. Possibly they may do
whit was attempted To be done here 10
prevent the two businesses, gambling
aud the selling Of liquor, being carried
on in the same house. That IL n ques
ton. whether that might he done or not.
Interruption aud discussion.
The fact may be that petitioner was
the owner Of the premises, II may he
that he was running the game, and IL
may be that he was running the game
In n house where he sold liquor M own
cr. II 50, he would bc guilty Of three
distinct oScnses under the ordinance,
You must specify the distinct charge
you expect conviction upon.
Interruption and discussion,
! have said there is a distinction be
tween gambling house and the running
OF games and this statute, this particu-
lar section Of the ordinance, ID occurs to
me, is not the exercise Of the power
granted TO the municipality by that
section ~. am not saying now,
and studiously avoid saying, because
IL Is not before me, whether the town
of Jerome could not suppress gamb-