Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-07-31
MEN DISCHARGED.
Slot Machine Seizure Cases at Bath
important Decision.

Bath. Me-, July 30.-The Times says:
Six Bath men faced Judge Staples in
the municipal court this morning on
complaint of State Detective Charles
A. Maxwell of Portland who was here
Yesterday accompanied by Rev. Henry
N Pringle, secretary of the Maine
Civic League. and seized ten slot ma
chimes or gambling devices, so-called,
from the six respondents. Each re-
spondent was charged with keeping a
place restorted to for the purpose of
gambling.
E. c. Plummer represented the re-
spondents.
The respondents We're. discharged
Judge Staples opinion on the case Is
most important and will doubtless
lead to a new Interpretation OF the
Maine law by municipal judges in
Maine.
with one exception these COM
plants are all for keeping places oc-
cupied used or resorted to for the
purpose of gambling, on July 20, 1908
"They are based on Section l OF
Chapter 1O5 of the Public Laws OF
1905, which the Legislature of that
year enacted in lieu of Section l OF
Chapter 1875 of the Revised Statutes
Under this statute it is incumbent
upon the State to prove beyond rea-
sonabla doubt that the several re-
spondents occupied and used the
premises described in the complaints
for the purpose of gambling, or that
the premises We're resorted to Tor
that purpose. 1t is not controverted
that the slot machines taken by the
officer and produced in court are
gambling implements.
"Giving the evidence offered by the
State it's full probative force, 1t only
goes to the extent of showing that the
gambling implements were found on
the premises of the respondents Inc
witnesses for the State are admittedly
unable to say that during the time
covered by the complaint. the machines
We're in use or that any person was
| on the premises Of any of the respon-
dents either actually or apparently Tor
the purpose of gambling by the use OF
| the machines There is total failure
| of proof Of these material facts.
| Now it is not necessary, under the
OeclSlbIlS III f'NAtN, eiioe 49,
| Uses should be used chiefly or prima-
rily for gambling; such use may be IN
| cidental merely But there must be
some use of the premises. or or the
| gambling implements on the premises,
| or some evidence that the premises are
| resorted to for this incidental purpose,
| in order to secure conviction under
| this form of complaint The mere pres
ence or finding of gambling imple-
ments on the premises is not sufficient.
In this connection the distinction
| should be noted between this form OF
procedure and that authorized by Sec
ton II of the Act of 1905.
| "IInder this latter section the Off
| Ger takes out warrant which COM
| mands him to arrest all persons on
| the premises who are either the keep
| ers or assistant keepers of the place;
| AMI also to seize all the furniture and
| apparatus Of every kind found there.
| But most important Of all. it makes
the finding of such gambling imple-
ments on such premises prima tiacie
| proof of the guilt of the respondent.
| This provision, however, is confined
| to gambling implements seized under
the provisions of that statute 1t does
| not extend to seizure made without
legal process.
| "In this case the State elected to
proceed under the general statute. 1t
had a right to DO so. 1t may have been,
| In some particulars, to its advantage
to do so. But having made it's election
it must be bound by the principles OF
law applicable thereto. 1t valves the
advantage of prima facie proof which
the other statute gives it. and elects
to assume the full burden of proof of
each material allegation in its COM
plant. In this it has failed. The judg-
ment must accordingly be not guilty.
adm the respondents are discharged"