The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1909-08-12

criminal lawyers and each an ex-
prosecuting attorney, have jointly
prepared a statement dealing with
the gambling decisions given by
Judge Taylor on Saturday. These de-
clslons have been the signals for un-
warranted expressions some of which
have purposely or otherwise been 50
framed as to reflect upon the court
by which the decisions were render
ed.
The fact that these three gentle
men stand high as members Of the
west Virginia bar and as men Of in
tegrlty and learning lends weight to
their statement, and the fact that
TWO OF them are republicans and one
Democrat robs the article OF all
partisan Significance. Not upon the
assumption that Judge Taylor needs
defense or that his decision needs
explanation, but for the enlighten-
ment OF the public on question
ABOUT which there seems to be a
general misunderstanding, the state
meht prepared by these attorneys Is
here given:
Judge Taylor may not care to get
into newspaper controversy with
the prosecuting attorneys or any one
else for that matter, over one of his
runngs; but the yelled criticism con-
tanned in the interview with the pros
ecuting attorney Is SO manifestly
unjust to Judge Taylor that it should
not go unnotlced. Judge Taylor's
private character needs no defense
His opposition to gambling is as we'll
known to the members of his bar as
his face
with the propriety of the prose-
cutting attorneys giving out an inter
view calculated to reflect in any de-
gree upon the Judge Of the criminal
court, with the question as to wheth-
er the Supreme court with the en-
Ilghtenment he could give it would
change the ruling in the Brast case
or not and as to whether or not
JudSe Iaylor is in any wise respon-
s1Dle IN this instance for the help
iesSness OF the prosecuting attorney,
we Will leave an indulgent public to
determine, but as the counsel con.
hected With the trial Of two of the
cases recently before Judge TAYLOR.
we regard 1t as an act of simple ms
Ilce TO him to say that the scope and
erect given to his decision is in our
oplD1on wholly unwarranted and SEN
satlonal in the extreme. It is said
unat this decision opens the doors
or the city to al kinds of gambling
ouch a conclusion is by no means
Just1hed. Fhe playing Of games of
chance upon wagers has never been
In the laws of England, Virginia or
WeSt virginia, treated as vice in
itseI1. There ,Was no provision in the
laws spiritual or temporal Of our
mother country handed down to us
as the fQHpp!dation Of our jurispru-
dence. making such practice q
crime or ever denouncing such a
practlce. Statutes, however, came to
be passed prohibiting such a practice
at certain places and under certain
circumstances defined in those stat
utes' and it requires the exercise of
out the plainest common sense to
reach the conclusion that only such
gaming as Is prohibited by these stat
utes IS IN any wise a violation Of law.
we have a number Of provisions in
our statute against the exhibiting OF
gaming devices; and against gaming
1or certain amounts greater than
$2O, at hotels and at public places or
public resorts.
The class Of offenses before tho
court for trial that provoked these
comments, was that of playing in a
public place. Certain persons were
indicted for playing in a public place
ana upon the trial Of such q case can
anything be more manifestly lust
IMAM to require the state to prove.
that the place named in the indict-
ment, was at the time Of the playing
a public place?
In these cases 1t became neces-
sary TO prove that the place describ-
ca was q public place and it became
the duty of Judge Taylor to pass I'D
on the legal sufticiency Of such testi-
mony as was presented by the state
upon this subject.
What is a public place within the
meaning Of this statute against gam
ing, mas been passed on both in Vir-
glnla and in this state and has been
dehned to be place where the peo-
PIE or the public are privileged to 20
without invitation.
| ana our court has said that tho
playing must be at q place 50 pub.
nc as that the publicity of the play
ing Will be an annoyance or nuisance
10 the public. 1t is not sufficient thu
some individual lady or gentleman IS
annoyed by the mere reputation that
certain place is gambling room
or by the noise of talking or that a
guest of a hotel in an ADJOINING
building could see persons PLAYING
C"ruS' II must be a place to which
me pu0llc may resort without inyi-
Iatlon. The object of this particular
provision in the statute is perfectly
pam; namely to prevent the spread
ing OF the practice by preventing it's
being done in public places where the
public might be enticed or Induces
20 pay, and to protect the sensibili,
ty Of those persons who believed
maj gambling was wrong and who
ml"ht be passing that wav