Stokes v. StateStokes v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Badt
*475 OPINION
By the Court,
BADT, J.:
This appeal calls for a construction of
The information charged that appellant “did willfully and unlawfully use a cheating device, to wit, a metal instrument to facilitate cheating in playing slot machines, and did employ said cheating device in playing licensed slot machines, located in the Nevada Club, in Tahoe Township, Douglas County, State of Nevada.”
It is apparent that the draftsman of the information chose, from the various other alternative acts declared by the section to be unlawful, a word here and there as a sort of embellishment. The surplusage may be disregarded. State v. Murray, 67 Nev. 131, 215 P.2d 265, 216 P.2d 606; Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 73 S.Ct. 1055, 97 L.Ed. 1557; Vanderhorst v. State, 151 Fla. 620, 10 So.2d 138. Without such surplusage the offense described in the alternative above quoted is clearly charged.
Appellant contends that
It is conceded that appellant and one Richard Charles-worth were apprehended and placed under arrest for using a cheating device on slot machines at the Nevada Club and that appellant was in company with said Charlesworth and that a common plan or scheme existed
*477
between them as far as Charlesworth’s actions were concerned and that appellant became a principal to Charles-worth’s use of a cheating device on slot machines. It is contended only that there was a fatal lack of proof of a federal license and that such license is specifically required under the provisions of
In short, it is appellant’s contention that nothing in the Nevada statute makes it unlawful to use a cheating device on an unlicensed slot machine, but only on a slot machine licensed by the state, county, local government, and federal government. We reject this contention also, so far as it applies to the particular act alternately described in the section as unlawful.
This would appear to be in conflict with
The point discussed is included in appellant’s assignments of error with reference to instructions given, instructions refused, denial of motion for instructed verdict, and rulings on evidence, but they all apply to the same contention.
The judgment and order denying motion for new trial are affirmed.
McNamee, C. J., and Pike, J., concur.
Notes
“1. It shall be unlawful for any person playing any licensed gambling game to use bogus or counterfeit chips, or to substitute and use in any such game cards or dice that have been marked, loaded or tampered with, or employ or have on his person any cheating device to facilitate cheating in such games or in playing any slot machine, lawful vending machine, coin box, telephone or other receptacle designed to receive or be operated by lawful coin of the United States of America in furtherance of or in connection with the sale, use or enjoyment of property or service, to use other than lawful coin, legal tender of the United States of America, not of the same denomination as the coin intended to be used in such device, or to use or have on his person any cheating or thieving device to facilitate removing from any slot machine, lawful vending-machine, coin box, telephone or other receptacle any part of the contents thereof.”