title:
State vs J H Foster, and State vs E W Way, Copy transcript and Brief and Brief and Argument on Appeal
title:
90
title:
91
creator:
J. H. Foster
creator:
Eugene W. Way
contributor:
Robinson
contributor:
Farwell
date:
1890
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Criminal
subject:
Criminal
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Appeal from District Court, King County.The facts are fully stated in the opinion. Indictment against E. W. Way for the crime of permitting faro to be dealt upon his premises. Plea of guilty, motion in arrest of judgment denied, and defendant sentenced to pay a fine of $ 500 and costs amounting to twenty dollars. The court also ordered the destruction of certain gaming apparatus which was seized in the possession of defendant. Defendant appeals.[NOT CONSOLIDATED kept as separate cases, but all in same briefs.]No. 90 – Gaming – Faro – Indictment – Judgment – Excessive Fine – As §§ 1253 and 1258, Code Wash. T., are sufficiently explicit to enable the court, with reasonable certainty, to determine what the legislature intended, and as they describe the offense of dealing faro, or permitting the same to be done on one’s premises, with sufficient certainty, they cannot be held void for uncertainty and ambiguity.As the gravamen of the offense consists in permitting the game of faro to be dealt in prohibited places, an indictment is sufficient, without specifying with whom the game was played, or in what particular manner it was conducted.Under § 1258 of the code, imposing a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars on conviction, and providing that defendant shall stand committed until the same is paid, but making no provision for the reasons that it exceeds the limitations of the statute, and does not fix a definite period of imprisonment in the event of non-payment of the fine, as said section should be construed in connection with § 2105, providing that on conviction the defendant shall be liable to pay costs in all cases, and § 1125, providing that in default of payment or security of fine and costs, a warrant shall be issued for defendant’s commitment, specifying that he be imprisoned one day for every two dollars of such fine and costs.No. 91 – Gaming – Destruction of Gambling Apparatus – Presumptions – Under a statute permitting the destruction of gambling apparatus seized and held as evidence upon the trial, where the record is silent as to how the apparatus came into the possession of the sheriff, the court cannot presume that such possession was wrongfully obtained, or that the recitals and order of the court directing the destruction were unauthorized.
relation:
Foster v. Territory of Washington, 1 Wash. 411 (1890)
relation:
Way v. Territory of Washington, 1 Wash. 415 (1890)
relation:
25 P. 459
relation:
25 P. 461
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf
