Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1911-12-20
JUDGE TABER's CHARGE.


charge to the jury in the case of
the State against NJ: B. Johnson
AID George Foragor, Indicted for
conducting faro game in viola,
tioa of the antl-gambling law:
Gentlemen of the Jury: The
defendants. M. B. Johnson and
George Foragor, are accused by
the indictment uf a felony alleged
to have been committed sub
stantlally as follows: That on
July 28th. 1911. or thereabuuts, at
Elko County, State of Nevada,
defendants dealt. carried on and
conducted. for money and chips
redeemable i'll money, a gambling
game known as and called faro.
which said gambling game, so un-
lawfully dealt, carried on and COLI
Quoted as aforesaid, was then and
there played at by one An Jim
for chips redeemable in money.
The statute which these defend.
ants. in this case, were accused of
having violated, is ali Act of the
Legislature of this state approved
March "a, 1909, and entitled, "An
Act prohibiting gambling, provid-
ing for the destruction of gambling
property and other matters re-
lating thereto" This statute is
now in effect. and has been in
effect since the first day of
October, 1910.
This statute, among other things,
makes it unlawful for any person
to deal carry on. CIR conduct in any
capacity whatever. any game of
faro, for money, checks, or any
representative of value.
S.lf, after fair consideration of
all the evidence in this case, you
shall be convinced, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that these
defendants at the time and place
eged in the Indictment, did
deal, or carry on, or conduct in
any capacity whatever, d game of
faro, for money, or chips redeem
able in money, and that said game
of faro so dealt, or carried on or
condu cted by defendants, was then
and there played at by one Ah Jim
for chips redeemable in money, it
will be your duty to render a
verdict Of guilty against the
defendants.
There are two defendants in this
case. If, after proDer consider
alton of all the evidence in the
case, you shall not be- convinced,
beyond a reasonable doubt, of the
guilt Of either of the defendants,
it will he your duty to render
verdict of not guilty as to both
defendants. II, after a proper
consideration Of all the evi iience in
the case, you shall be convinced,
beyond reasonable doubt, of the
guilt of one Of the defendants, but
shall not be convinced. beyond
reasonable doubt. Of the guilt of
the other defendant. it will then be
your duty to render a verdict of
guilty as to the former, and not
guilty as to the latter. If, after
fair consideration 0f all the evil
dence in the case, you shall he con-
vinced beyond a reasonable doubt,
Of the guilt of both defendants, it
will then be your duty to render
a verdict Of guilty as to both
defendants.
In this. as in every criminal
action, the defen dants are
presumed to be innocent until the
contrary be proved; and in case of
unreasonable doubt whether their
guilt be satisfactorily shown they
are entitled to be acquitted. The
presumption Of innocence with
which the defendants are clothed
at the outset of the trial does not
shift. 1t attends the accused
throughout the trial, and until It
is rebutted beyond all reasonable
doubt. and IL is nnt 70 hn ln.4