History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. . King
18 S.E. 169
N.C.
1893
Check Treatment
Shepherd, C. J.:

The defendant is indicted for a violation of chapter 29 of the Acts of 1891, which provides: “That it shall be unlawful for any person to play at a game of chance at which money, property or other thing of value is bet, whether the same be in stake or not, and those who play and bet therein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” The defendant both played and bet at a game known as “ten-pins,” and the manner in which such game is played is particularly described in the special verdict. The only question to be decided is whether such a game is a game of chance, and that it is not we have direct authority in the case of State v. Gupton, 8 Ired., 271. After an interesting discussion as to what constitutes a game of chance, RuefiN, C. J., concludes that “ we take this game to be one species of the game known in England and spoken of in her statutes under the general term of bowls, and, if it be, there is legal authority for holding it not to be a game of chance.” The Attorney General, with his usual and commendable candor, yields the case under the above decision. Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. . King
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Sep 5, 1893
Citation: 18 S.E. 169
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.