35 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM, 1880. 629 Euper vs. The State. EIIPER VS. THE STATE. GAMING : Pico. Pico, like keno, is a gambling device, within the mischief intended to be suppressed by secs. 1557, 1560 of Gantt's Digest. APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court. HOII. JOHN H. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. W. Walker, for appellant. Henderson-, Attorney General, contra.
ao. 630 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [35 Ark. Euper vs. The State. ENGLIthi, C. J. The indictment charged: 'that "Anton Euper, on the tenth day of Febrnary, .A.' D.1886, in the county of Sebastian, and in the Fort Smith 'district thereof; being then and there the eccnpant of a certaiiv houae in the city of Fort Smith, in said' connty , and district, did then and there unlawfully and knowingly permit and suffer a. certain: gaming bank or gambling deVice, adapted, deVised and de: signed for the 'purpose of playing a game of chance, and ,at which . money , or property . may be won or Jost, _which said gaming bank or gambling device -1Vas Commonly _Called pico, to be carried on in the said house so occupied 'by bird,' the said Anton Euper, as aforesaid, against the Peace,' etc. On the plea of not guilty, the defendant,was tried by a jury; found guilty, and his punishment fixed at $100. A new trial was refused hiin, and he took 6. , hill of exceptions; ju'dginerit' N-■, ,-as entered upon the verdict, and he appealed. On the trial, it was proved that , the defendant was a saloon-keeper of Fort Smith, and that the gaMbling device called pico was set up, exhibited, and carried on in a : back room of his saloon. He admitted that the game of ,pico was carried on in the house occupied by him, by his consent, at the time and place stated . in the indictment. And it. was also proved (the bill of exceptions states) that the game of pico is the 'same in principle and detail as the game of keno, and is played and carried on in the, same manners as stated„from the proof, in the opinion of this court, in Portis v. The State, 37 Ark., 360, and in Trimble v. The State, ib., 355, and that the game set up and carried on in the house occupied by defendant was the same gambling device as that described as keno, in the opinions above mentioned, with these exceptions, that in pi&) common playing-cards were used, both On the' balls and on the pico cards,
35 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM; 1880.. 631 sold to the players, instead of numbers, as in keno, and that there were but four cards to fill out on a pica card, instead of five numbers, as in keno, in order to be the winner. And that the exhibitors of the game bet nothing on the- game, but, as in the game of keno, exacted, and took out of the money paid by the players, a commission. ,The charge of the court to the jury was in harmony *ith the opinions of this court in the keno cases above refeired to. Counsel for appellant moved instructions not in harmony with those opinions, and, in substance and effect, that the gaming device, pico, as described in the evidence, was not within the purview of secs. 1 and 4 (Gantt's Digest, secs. 1557, 1560) of the gaming statute, which the court refused: Counsel for appellant submits that the opinions in the keno cases are not in harmony with previous decisions of this court, and should be overruled. Neither public morals nor good order would be promoted by overruling those cases. No doubt pico, like keno, is a gambling device within the mischief intended to be suppressed by the sections of the statute above referred to. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.