Judges: ELLIS, P.J.
Attorneys: H.H. Wells, B.K. Roberts and William K. Whitfield, all of Tallahassee, and J. Fritz Gordon of Miami, for Petitioner;
G.A. Worley, State Attorney, J.W. Watson, Jr., and Abe Aronovitz, for Respondent.
Filed: Dec. 11, 1935
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: L.B. Hardison in November, 1935, kept in his place of business a mechanical device or machine commonly called and known as a "slot machine." A warrant for his arrest was issued by a Justice of the Peace upon an affidavit purporting to charge Hardison with *Page 893 the crime of conducting a lottery for money. The language of the warrant issued, and upon which he was arrested, charges the alleged offense in the following words: "One L.B. Hardison did then and there unlawfully and feloniously set
Summary: L.B. Hardison in November, 1935, kept in his place of business a mechanical device or machine commonly called and known as a "slot machine." A warrant for his arrest was issued by a Justice of the Peace upon an affidavit purporting to charge Hardison with *Page 893 the crime of conducting a lottery for money. The language of the warrant issued, and upon which he was arrested, charges the alleged offense in the following words: "One L.B. Hardison did then and there unlawfully and feloniously set u..
More
In the case of Lee, Comptroller, et al., v. City of Miami, etal., decided at this term, opinion filed September 25, 1935, I prepared and had filed a dissenting opinion in which I expressed my views as to what the construction of paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Chapter 17257, Acts of 1935, should be. In the majority opinion in that case a different construction was adhered to. The construction as promulgated in the majority opinion in that case became the law of the State of Florida in that regard when that opinion was filed and the mandate issued. Therefore, I am bound by the construction, as I am bound by any other law obtaining in the State of Florida.
On authority of the opinion and judgment in that case, the operation of a slot machine such as is described in the affidavit in this case could not constitute a lottery and, therefore,
I concur in the judgment that the petitioner should be discharged.
