Court Opinion

ID: 9587661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:24:55.757714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:45.696734
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
While concurring fully with the dissent of Judge Beasley, additional comments are appropriate. As pointed out in the majority opinion, the issue is whether a “house was being used as a ‘gambling place’ within the meaning of the statute.”
The defendant was “ ‘at the house of Mrs. Frank Lomax, gambling’; that they were ‘shooting craps for a quarter on a corner.’ . . . We may say en passant that the humble ‘crap shooter’ is more frequently detected by the vigilant officer than the aristocratic ‘poker player.’ . . . [W]e do not think the jury had any trouble in understanding what was meant.” Sims v. State, 1 Ga. App. 776, 776-777 (57 SE 1029) (1907).
Gambling is gambling no matter what its title. “Gambling like many other practices in modern life has had its evolution and in no field has the wit of man been shrewder but the courts have generally held that, if the elements constituting gambling are present, the name by which called will not defeat the penalty.” Creash v. State, 179 S. 149, 152 (Fla. 1938).