Case Name: Chester WOOTON, Sheriff for the Parish of Plaquemines v. Mato FARAC and Irving Hingle
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1954-03-22
Citations: 225 La. 313
Docket Number: No. 41597
Parties: Chester WOOTON, Sheriff for the Parish of Plaquemines v. Mato FARAC and Irving Hingle.
Judges: HAMITER, J., concurs in the decree.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 225
Pages: 313–313

Head Matter:
72 So.2d 518
Chester WOOTON, Sheriff for the Parish of Plaquemines v. Mato FARAC and Irving Hingle.
No. 41597.
March 22, 1954.
Rehearing Denied April 26, 1954.
L. H. Perez, New Orleans, Dist. Atty., and Rudolph M. McBride, New Orleans, and William F. Roy, Jr., Arabi, Assts. to the Dist. Atty., and Elven E. Ponder, Baton RoUge, for appellants.
Claude W. Duke, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Opinion:
McCALEB, Justice.
In this case, Chester Wooton, Sheriff of the Parish of Plaquemines, filed a rule against Mato Farac and Irving Hingle to show cause why he should not destroy six certain slot machines owned by them which were confiscated by him while located at the Delta Club in Port Sulphur, Louisiana. In due course, the defendants appeared and objected to the seizure and summary destruction of the gambling devices, contending that Act No. 231 of 1928 (now LSA-R.S. 15:26.1) had been repealed by Act No. 6 of 1948 (now LSA-R.S. 47:375) and that the former was rmconstitutional.
After a hearing, the judge ruled in favor of defendants. Thereafter the Sheriff and Francis C. Grevemberg, Superintendent of the Division of State Police, who alleges that he is aggrieved by the judgment, prosecuted separate appeals.
This appeal presents the identical issue as that in Guillot v. Nunez, 225 La. 301, 72 So.2d 513. The cases were consolidated for argument and the opinion in that matter is controlling here.
The judgment appealed from is therefore annulled and reversed. The rule taken by Chester Wooten, Sheriff of the Parish of Plaquemines, is now made absolute and he is forthwith ordered to destroy the six slot machines confiscated by him in accordance with the provisions of LSA-R.S. 15:26.1. The defendants are to pay all costs.
HAMITER, J., concurs in the decree.