¶1(dissenting). Although the setting up or exhibiting of each of the gamirg tables mentioned in section 1732 of Kirby’s Digest may be a separate offense when done by different persons at the same time or by the same person at different times, I think the setting up or exhibiting of two or more of the tables by the same person at the same time and at the same place are co-operating acts, and constitute but one offense, for which but one punishment can be inflicted. Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 4 Dana (Ky.) 518; Commonwealth v. Casson, 6 Phil. (Pa.) 381; Leath v. Commonwealth 32 Gratt. (Va.) 873; Wingard v. State, 13 Ga. 396. See also Grant v. State, 70 Ark. 290, and State v. Keoun, 64 Ark. 231.
100 Ark. 591
Jacobs v. State
Decided October 23, 1911
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1911-10-23
Gotham, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. Appellant was convicted on five separate indictments for exhibiting certain gambling devices, each indictment being for the exhibition of a different one.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1927
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relies on Wingard v. State · Keoun v. State · Grant v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
affirmed · Decided 1911-10-23
View the full empirical analysis of this case →