{
  "id": 1875683,
  "name": "Flynn vs. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Flynn v. State",
  "decision_date": "1879-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "441",
  "last_page": "443",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ark. 441"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2728,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.43,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4112372960740182
    },
    "sha256": "585af640f538880521f2a572b20903549723ee42f3bff726b880d6d24d7be3ca",
    "simhash": "1:9202690b4ecf9185",
    "word_count": 478
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:09:16.201435+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Flynn vs. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eakin, J.\nAppellant was tried before a justice of the peace, upon a warrant ordering his arrest for a misdemeanor, committed by \u201c betting money on a game played at cards, commonly called pocre.\u201d He was convicted, fined ten dollars, and appealed to the circuit court. He was there again tried, convicted, and fined in the same amount. Pie moved for a new trial, and, failing in that motion, appealed here. He complains of error in the instructions given and refused; and that the proof did not sustain the verdict. The proof, as set forth in the bill of exceptions, showed that he did bet chips, or cheeks, at a game' played with cards, called \u201cstud,\u201d or \u201cstud-horse,\u201d poker \u2014 and that the same was a variation of the game of poker ; being somewhat different from certain other games called \u201cstraight poker\u201d and \u201cdraw poker,\u201d but decided, as to results, by show of the cards, and, by high cards, pairs, and threes, as in common poker. The proof further tended to show that the defendant bought the chips, or checks, with money, and that they represented money.\nThe instructions refused by the court were framed with a view to instruct the jury that, if they believed \u201cstud\u201d or \u201cstud-horse\u201d poker to be a different game from \u201cpoker,\u201d although of the same class of games ; or did not believe, from the evidence, that the defendant bet money, or something of value, at the game, they should acquit.\nThe court did fully and clearly instruct the jury, that, in order to convict, they must believe the defendant bet money, or something of value, on the game; but that any thing representing money would be sufficient; and, further, that they must believe the game of \u201cstud\u201d or \u201cstud-horse\u201d poker to come within the class of games designated by the term poker.\nThe law was correctly given. The statute can not be evaded by slight variations in the name, or mode of playing the game; nor by paying money into the hands of a stakeholder or banker, and taking chips to bet with, nor by obtaining chips from others to bet with, which would draw money.\nIn all such cases, the money which the chips represent is the thing actually bet.\nOther objections to the verdict and judgment, are not important to be noticed.\nLet the judgment be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eakin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henderson, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Flynn vs. State.\n1. Criminal Evidence : Pocre \u2014 Stud Pocre.\nProof of the playing of \u201cstud\u201d pocre will sustain an indictment for playing pocre. The statute can not be evaded by slight variations in the name, or mode of playing the game, nor by paying money to a banker or stakeholder, and taking chips to bet with, nor by obtaining chips from others to bet with, which would draw money.\nAPPEAL from Garland Circuit Court.\nHon. J. M. Smith, Circuit Judge.\nHenderson, Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0441-01",
  "first_page_order": 443,
  "last_page_order": 445
}