How this document has been cited
—kept for the purpose of gaming, or any gambling device, so set up and kept, adapted, devised and designed for the purpose of playing any game of chance for money or property, and to which the public may resort to bet or wager money, is a gaming table within the meaning of the statute. The definition of a gaming table under the statute does not involve the ordinary …
- in Boosalis v. Crawford, 1938 and 3 similar citations
"Property seized in connection with a lawful arrest, and which is held merely as evidence of crime, does not come within the protection of the provisions of the Constitution prohibiting search and seizure without a search warrant."
- in Brown v. United States, 1929 and 3 similar citations
Count 1 charged him and another with keeping a gaming table for the purpose of betting and wagering money upon the results of horse races; count 2, with setting up and keeping a gambling device for the same purpose; count 3, with keeping a place for the purpose of gambling upon the results of horse races; count 4, with permitting to be set up and used a gaming …
- in Brown v. United States, 1929 and one similar citation
The other cases that Van Orsdel released on that same day, Dec. 3, 1923, reflect a generous spate of legal citations.
- in Courting science, binding truth: A social history of Frye v. United States and one similar citation
This court, in accordance with the Congressional injunction in the second paragraph, has construed the first one liberally.
- in Boosalis v. Crawford, 1938 and one similar citation
The statute in neither case requires proof of the passing of the money.—The indictment is drawn in almost the language of the statute, and charges that both as to place and table defendants were conducting a gaming establishment. That is sufficient.
Many subsequent cases have involved the statute which was originally the Act of 1883, but all of them appear to have involved a physical device or a designated place
The right of search extends to the premises in control of the defendant arrested, and authorizes the seizure of that which is evidentiary of the crime.
At this point it should be distinctly appropriate to note that Mr. Chief Justice Smyth said for this court as long ago as 1919 that it is a "*** rule which prevails in Federal jurisdictions [that] the judge presiding at a trial `has a right, and indeed, it is his duty, to see that the facts of the case are brought intelligibly to the attention of the jury, and to what extent he will intervene for …
Cited by
189 F. 2d 19 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1951
99 F. 2d 374 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938
32 F. 2d 963 - DC: Court of Appeals 1929
16 F. 2d 202 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1926
8 F. 2d 251 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1925
A RIcHARm… -
NON BONIS -
EH EVANS -
M Telephones -