95 Me. 518 | Me. | 1901
The only question raised by this bill of exceptions is whether the use in gambling of a gambling apparatus or implement by a bailee, without the consent or knowledge of the owner, the bailor, subjects it to destruction under R. S., c. 125, § 12. We think it does. As said of a similar statute in Commonwealth v. Gaming Implements, 155 Mass. 165, the effect of the statute is to impose upon the owner of gambling apparatus or implements the burden of effectually keeping them from being used in gambling. All such apparatus and implements are presumably made, owned and kept for use in gambling, and their destruction is authorized, not to punish the owner for some unlawful act or
The owner of this particular gambling apparatus did not effectually keep it harmless. It escaped from him to the hurt of society. It can, therefore, be lawfully destroyed in the manner provided by statute.
Exceptions overruled.