Brockett v. State

Nov 13, 1924
15779
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Broyles
Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍facts.) In our opinion the slot machine as operated by ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍the defendant was a gambling device, within the meaning ‘of the ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍statute. Meyer v. State, 112 Ga. 20 (37 S. E. 96, 51 L. R. A. 496, 81 Am. ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍St. Rep. 17), and authorities cited; Alexander v. Atlanta, 13 Ga. App. 354 (79 S. E. ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‍177).

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.