{
  "id": 1425419,
  "name": "Steed v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steed v. State",
  "decision_date": "1934-06-11",
  "docket_number": "Crim. 3889",
  "first_page": "389",
  "last_page": "390",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ark. 389"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 S. W. (2d) 782",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 Ark. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1438597
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/184/0109-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3408,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.620974555515018e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8213523259464162
    },
    "sha256": "e0915cc55b28c3adb2fadfd3d427afc3d1ca6ecdd034a88b6eeb6fbaa9138941",
    "simhash": "1:beeeb44001b6b77a",
    "word_count": 601
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:52.773578+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Steed v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nSearch warrants were issued by the circuit judge of Jefferson County under \u00a7 2637 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest on information that gambling devices commonly called slot or marble machines were kept contrary to law in a cigar store operated by S. A. Rosenberg and in a sandwich shop operated by Jerome Weaver in Pine Bluff. The sheriff executed the writs by taking into his custody certain slot marble machines which were \u25a0being used at 'both places. The two causes were consolidated by order of court, and appellant herein, the owner of the machines, intervened, alleging that they were manufactured and used for the purpose of amusement, and not for the purpose of gambling.\nOn the hearing of the consolidated causes., the trial court found that the machines were gambling devices and ordered that they be destroyed, from which is this appeal.\nThe r\u00e9cord reflects that the machine seized at the cigar store was used a part of the time by the patrons for gambling and at other times for amusement only; that the. machine seized at the standwich shop had been used by the patrons for gambling until notice had been given by the circuit judge that marble slot machines would be confiscated, and that then it was used for the purpose of amusement only; that the m\u00e1chines are so constructed that by putting a nickel in the slot ten marbles are released and are brought into play one at a time by pulling a lever on the side, and then by pulling another lever each marble is shot out to a large board containing holes which are numbered, into which the marbles drop; that the patron getting the largest score wins the game and the prize.\nSection 2637 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, under which the machines were seized, provides for the destruction of gambling devices, which \u00a7 2630 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest makes it unlawful to keep and exhibit. Said \u00a7 2630 is as follows:\n\u201cEvery person who shall set up, keep or exhibit any gaming table or gambling device, commonly called A. B. C., E. 0., roulette, rouge et noir, or any faro bank, or any other gaming table or gambling device, or bank of the like or similar kind, or of any other description although not herein named, be the name or denomination what it may, adapted, devised or designed for the purpose of playing any game of chance or at which any money or property may be won or lost, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars, and may be imprisoned any length of time not less than thirty days nor more than one year. \u2019 \u2019\nAppellant contends that the marble slot machines owned by him and seized in these actions are not gambling devices inhibited by \u00a7 2630 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, and that the order for their destruction should be reversed. The description of these slot machines make them gambling devices per se under the construction placed upon said \u00a7 2630 in the case of Howell v. State, 184 Ark. 109, 40 S. W. (2d) 782, and cases cited therein. We might add that they are gambling devices per se because the only reasonable and profitable use to which they may be put is use in a game of chance.\nNo error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Remberger $ Reinberger and E. D. Dupree, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Robert F. Smith, Assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Steed v. State.\nCrim. 3889\nOpinion delivered June 11, 1934.\nRemberger $ Reinberger and E. D. Dupree, Jr., for appellant.\nHal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Robert F. Smith, Assistant, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0389-01",
  "first_page_order": 407,
  "last_page_order": 408
}