{
  "id": 8723307,
  "name": "Goins v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goins v. State",
  "decision_date": "1937-10-11",
  "docket_number": "Crim. 4059",
  "first_page": "598",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ark. 598"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 4846,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "sha256": "e42eb83d8e737ca63e4ecf745c5a9436636e304486931c58c5d638108359a82c",
    "simhash": "1:839bf20000663867",
    "word_count": 831
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:46.346325+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Goins v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GrieeiN Smith, C. J.\nSection 2668 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest provides that \u201cAny person who shall vend, sell, or otherwise dispose of any lottery ticket * * * shall he deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to indictment, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars.'\u201d\nAppellant was arrested in North Little Rock by officers Hunter and Blankenship and in his possession were found seventeen tickets of two distinct characteristics. Eight of these tickets are obviously carbon copies 2% x 3% inches, written with pencil, and taken from a pad of blank news print paper. They are of uniform size and Were apparently taken from the same pad. Various letters and figures appear thereon. These, although. legible, are meaningless unless explained.\nThe remaining nine tickets are 1% inches wide by 5% inches in length. They, too, appear to be of common news or pulp paper. These exhibits carry the in-dorsement: \u201cFrisco; Class No. 37 p. m. 890 Clearing House.\u201d There are other numbers on the slips, which appear to have been made with a rubber stamp.\nAppellant was tried in the municipal court of North Little Rock and fined $50. On appeal to circuit court there was a jury trial, a verdict of guilty, and a fine of $200.\nThis appeal questions sufficiency and admissibility of evidence offered by the state, 'and the correctness of instruction No. 2. The testimony is presented here in an agneed statement of facts.\nOfficer Hunter testified that when appellant was arrested May 18, 1937, the tickets referred to supra were found in his possession. \u201cThese tickets were carbon copies of eight tickets used in playing the policy game and eight winning number pay-off tickets of the Frisco House. I have talked with a number of policy writers and buyers over a period of several months and have made a study of the game,. In this manner I have learned the details. Two copies of each ticket are sold, the original being given to the buyer, and the carbon copy, such as those introduced in evidence, is retained by the seller. I only know from my study of the game and from talking with policy operators and buyers that a buyer receives an original copy and the seller retains a copy. I did not see the defendant sell these or any other tickets -to any person. \u2019 \u2019\nOfficer Blankenship\u2019s testimony was to the same effect, except that he calculated, in the presence of 'the jury, that cost of the original tickets corresponding with copies in evidence was $7.15.\nThe testimony was objected to on the ground that the officers lacked means of knowledge sufficient to qualify them to answer the questions, and exceptions were duly saved.\nAppellant\u2019s testimony was a'denial that lie had sold any lottery tickets. He claimed that the tickets found in his possession had been purchased from time to time, and said that, when arrested, he had only 70 cents in his possession. On cross-examination appellant could not name anyone from whom he made purchases. He did not remember when the purchases were made, or whether in Little Rock or North Little Rock.\nInstruction No. 2 reads as follows: \u201cIf the defendant had lottery tickets and they were possessed for the purposes of sale, then it would be a violation of \u00a7 2668, Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest. To vend means to make an object of trade, especially to offer for sale or to peddle or to possess for the purpose of sale.\u201d\nThe instruction is erroneous. Section 2668 applies only to one who \u201cshall vend, sell, or otherwise dispose of any lottery ticket.\u201d One who possesses such tickets for the purpose of sale has not violated the prohibition against \u201cvending, selling, or otherwise disposing of any lottery ticket.\u201d\nWebster\u2019s dictionary defines \u201cvend\u201d as follows: \u201cTo transfer to another for a pecuniary equivalent; to make an object of trade, especially by hawking or peddling; to sell; as to vend fruit.\u201d The expression \u201cto make an object of sale,\u201d as used in the definition, obviously means that the object is the subject-matter of the sale. It does not mean that if an article has been made for the purpose of being sold, there has been a vending.\nIn Words and Phrases (1st Ed., p. 7287) the following is quoted: \u201c Wend\u2019 means the habit of selling and offering for sale. Selling and exposing to sale are not coextensive. The former may include the latter; but a mere \u00e9xposure to sale, i.e., with intent to sell or for the purpose of selling, is not only not equivalent to a sale, but, as regards the patentee, may be attended with wholly different consequences.\u201d\nFor the error in giving instruction No. 2, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GrieeiN Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "V. N. Garter, for appellant.",
      "Jack Holt, Attorney General, and John P. Styeepey, Assistant, for appellee. \u25a0"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Goins v. State.\nCrim. 4059\nOpinion delivered October 11, 1937.\nV. N. Garter, for appellant.\nJack Holt, Attorney General, and John P. Styeepey, Assistant, for appellee. \u25a0"
  },
  "file_name": "0598-01",
  "first_page_order": 616,
  "last_page_order": 618
}