instance, one who watches to guard against the detection of those gambling.74

§ 718. Gaming, acts constituting statutory offense.—If the statute punishes the playing of a specific game, it is enough to show the playing of this game.75 No wager need be shown, if merely the playing is punishable;76 but if the statute is against gaming, a wager must be alleged and proved. If the statute prohibits generally playing games of chance for money, it must be shown that the game played was one of chance.78 Some statutes require proof that the game was in a public place79 and some except private residences.80

8719. Wager.-So that the wager has some values1 its amount is immaterial.82 Beers, cigars or treats,83 the use of the table on which the game is played,84 to be paid for by

74 Ransom v. State, 26 Fla. 364, 7 So. 860; Soly v. People, 134 Ill. 66, 25 N. E. 109; Commonwealth v. Watson, 154 Mass. 135, 27 N. E. 1003; Earp v. State (Tex.), 13 S. W. 888.

75 State v. Jeffrey, 33 Ark. 136; State v. Kaufman, 59 Iowa 273, 13 N. W. 292; Commonwealth v. Monarch, 6 Bush (Ky.) 301; State v. Mann, 13 Tex. 61; State v. Lewis, 12 Wis. 434; Reg v. Ashton, 1 El. & Bl. 286, 17 Jur. 501.

76 Stockden v. State, 18 Ark. 186. 77 Rosson v. State, 92 Ala. 76, 9 So. 357; State v. Stillwell, 16 Kans. 24.

78 Bryan v. State, 26 Ala. 65; People v. Carroll, 80 Cal. 153, 22 Pac. 129; State v. Dole, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 294; Commonwealth v. Ferry, 146 Mass. 203, 15 N. E. 484; Campbell v. State, 2 Tex. App. 187.

79 Flake v. State, 19 Ala. 551; State v. Norton, 19 Tex. 102; Linkous v. Commonwealth, 9 Leigh (Va.) 608.

80 Purvis v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 302, 137 S. W. 701, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 536.

81 Carr v. State, 50 Ind. 178.

82 Long v. State, 22 Tex. App. 194, 2 S. W. 541, 58 Am. Rep. 633; Commonwealth v. Garland, 5 Rand. (Va.) 652.

83 State v. Wade, 43 Ark. 77, 51 Am. Rep. 560; State v. Bishel, 39 Iowa 42; Brown v. State, 49 N. J. L. 61, 7 Atl. 340; Hitchins v. People, 39 N. Y. 454; Bachellor v. State, 10 Tex. 258.

84 State v. Sanders, 86 Ark. 353, 111 S. W. 454, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 913; Hopkins v. State, 122 Ga. 583, 50 So. 351, 69 L. R. A. 117, 2 Ann. Cas. 617; Alexander v. State, 99

the losers, are within the prohibition. If the stake itself has no value, as chips or checks, but is convertible into value, this is enough.85 It is not even necessary for the stakes to be put up,86 or an agreement made definitely, to pay it, if it is understood the loser shall pay if he wishes.87 One who bets chips which cost nothing, has nothing at stake, and is not guilty of gaming.88 The offense is complete when the wager is made and accepted and the game begun.89 If the statutes punish playing at a game of cards at which money was bet, it is immaterial whether the defendant bet or knew that money was wagered on the game.90

§ 720. Betting. Betting on certain games is incidentally punishable as part of the offense of gaming, as has been seen. Betting itself is made an offense by statute in some jurisdictions. The offense is defined as an agreement that one of two parties will pay the other a specific sum, if a contingent future happening occurs.91

Betting is criminal only by statute92 and in some jurisdictions is held not to be punishable as gaming.93 Betting on horse races is made a specific offense by statute in some jurisdictions. The giving of a premium to the owner of a win

94

Ind. 450; State v. Book, 41 Iowa 550, 20 Am. Rep. 609; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 14 Gray (Mass.) 26; State v. Leighton, 23 N. H. 167. But see Clark v. State, 49 Ala. 37; Blewett v. State, 34 Miss. 606; State v. Hall, 32 N. J. L. 158.

85 Porter v. State, 51 Ga. 300; Gibbons v. People, 33 Ill. 442. 86 Alexander v. State, 99 Ind. 450.

87 Walker V. State, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 287.

88 Fagan v. State, 21 Ark. 390. 89 Sikes v. State, 67 Ala. 77; State v. Welch, 7 Port. (Ala.) 463.

90 Reeves v. State, 9 Tex. 447. 91 Ansley v. State, 36 Ark. 67,

38 Am. Rep. 29; People v. Weithoff, 51 Mich. 215, 16 N. W. 442, 47 Am. Rep. 557; State v. Shaw, 39 Minn. 153, 39 N. W. 305, 8 Am. Cr. 321; People v. Todd, 51 Hun 446, 4 N. Y. S. 25, 6 N. Y. Cr. 203, 21 N. Y. St. 399; State v. Smith, Meigs (Tenn.) 99, 33 Am. Dec. 132; Long v. State, 22 Tex. App. 194, 2 S. W. 541, 58 Am. Rep. 633.

92 Smoot v. State, 18 Ind. 18. 93 State v. Rorie, 23 Ark. 726; Harless v. United States, Morris (Iowa) 169;. Commonwealth Shelton, 8 Grat. (Va.) 592.

V.

94 State v. Lovell, 39 N. J. L. 458, 463; Williams V. State, 92 Tenn. 275, 21 S. W. 662.

ning horse in a race is not betting;95 nor is it gambling to race horses for a prize offered by a third party.96 Betting on a race outside the state is indictable under the statute.? All parties concerned in a bet are principals.98 A conspiracy to cheat by betting is a common-law offense.99

Betting on elections will be treated later.1

Pool selling is made an offense in many states. Persons forming the pool pay in money, which according to the agreement goes to certain ones of them when some contingency happens2 and the seller is the one in control of the scheme who sells chances or records bets.3

§ 721. Keeping gaming house.-At common law keeping a gaming house may be indictable as a nuisance, since it brings together disorderly persons, and promotes immorality and breach of the peace. The hazard on the games may be anything with value, as was seen in the discussion of the wager. Any place fitted up for gaming and intended to be

95 Delier v. Plymouth Co. Ag. Soc., 57 Iowa 481, 10 N. W. 872.

96 Alvord v. Smith, 63 Ind. 58; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532; Misner v. Knapp, 13 Ore. 135, 9 Pac. 65, 57 Am. Rep. 6; Porter v. Day, 71 Wis. 296, 37 N. W. 259. But see Bronson Ag. &c. Assn. V. Ramsdell, 24 Mich. 441; Comly v. Hillegass, 94 Pa. St. 132, 39 Am. Rep. 774.

97 Stearns v. State, 81 Md. 341, 32 Atl. 282; State v. Lovell, 39 N. J. L. 463; Williams v. State, 92 Tenn. 275, 21 S. W. 662.

98 State v. Welch, 7 Port. (Ala.) 463; Parmer v. State, 91 Ga. 152, 16 S. E. 937; Stone v. State, 3 Tex. App. 675.

99 Reg. v. Bailey, 4 Cox Cr. C. 390; Reg. v. Hudson, 8 Cox Cr. C. 305.

1 See Chap. LXVII, § 812.

2 Commonwealth v. Watsen, 154

Mass. 135, 27 N. E. 1003; People v. McDonald, 165 N. Y. S. 41, 177 App. Div. 806; State v. Bird, 29 Idaho 47, 156 Pac. 1140; State v. Pelham, 29 Idaho 52, 156 Pac. 1141. 3 State v. Howard, 9 Ind. App. 635, 37 N. E. 27; Commonwealth v. Clancy, 154 Mass. 128, 27 N. E. 1001.

4 United States v. Ismenard, Fed. Cas. No. 15450, 1 Cranch (U. S.) 150; State v. Layman, 5 Harr. (Del.) 510; State v. Savannah, T. U. P. Charlt. (Ga.) 235, 4 Am. Dec. 708; Lord v. State, 16 N. H. 325, 41 Am. Dec. 729; People v. Jackson, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 101, 45 Am. Dec. 449; State v. Baker, 69 W. Va. 263, 71 S. E. 186, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 549; Rex v. Rogier, 1 Barn. & C. 272.

5 State v. Markham, 15 La. Ann. 498; People v. Sergeant, 8 Cow.

so used is a gambling house. The offense is not a continuing one, and keeping for a day or allowing play once, is enough. The keeping of a house used for betting on horse races may be indictable, and the keeper of a bucket shop may be convicted."

§ 722. Keeping gaming tables or devices.-Some statutes create the offense of keeping and exhibiting gaming tables and devices, as distinct from gaming. They often provide for the seizure and destruction of the gambling devices.10 These statutes are often worded to prohibit expressly keeping devices for playing specific games, such as faro,11 keno,12 poker18 "and games of like nature."14 These general words include only devices similar to those enumerated.15 Slot machines are included under the general prohibition.16 Ordi

nary tables on which poker1 or dice18 are played, or playing cards,19 are not gambling devices, under these statutes. Under some statutes the tables must be kept for hire or gain.20 Under some the keeping of such devices for the members of a social club constitutes the offense.21 The wires, blackboard and ticker of a bucket shop are not gambling devices."

§ 723. Allowing gaming on premises.-Other statutes punish one who allows or permits gaming on his premises.23 This is an offense distinct from keeping a gaming house.24 Guilty knowledge is essential to the crime,25 but such knowledge may be presumed from occupancy.26

The prohibition applies to all games embraced in the gaming statute.27

The offense may be committed in a private house,28 and need not be in a public place.

17 Lyle v. State, 30 Tex. App. 118, 16 S. W. 765, 28 Am. St. 893.

18 Chappell v. State, 27 Tex. App. 310, 11 S. W. 411; Hanks v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 1, 111 S. W. 402, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1210n.

19 State v. Gilmore, 98 Mo. 206, 11 S. W. 620, 8 Am. Cr. 312; Furlow v. State, 123 Ark. 471, 185 S. W. 788. But see Eubanks v. State, 5 Mo. 450.

20 People v. Weithoff, 100 Mich. 393, 58 N. W. 1115.

21 State v. Chauvin, 231 Mo. 31, 132 S. W. 243, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 992.

22 Jacobi v. State, 59 Ala. 71; Ives v. Boyce, 85 Nebr. 324, 123 N. W. 318, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 157. But see Harris v. State (Tex. Cr.), 198 S. W. 956 (tent held a private residence and not within the statute).

23 Stoltz v. People, 5 Ill. 168; Commonwealth v. Lampton, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 261.

24 State v. Currier, 23 Maine 43. But it has been held indictable as gaming. Fugate v. State, 2 Humph (Tenn.) 397.

25 State v. Mathis, 3 Ark. 84; State v. Middleton, 11 Iowa 246; Marston v. Commonwealth, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 485; Commonwealth v. Watson, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 408.

26 Mount v. State, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 277; Robinson v. State, 24 Tex. 152.

27 Commonwealth v. Goding, 3 Metc. (Mass.) 130; Wortham v. State, 59 Miss. 179; Ward v. State, 17 Ohio St. 32; State v. Lewis, 12 Wis. 434.

28 State v. Brice, 2 Brev. (S. Car.) 66.