Judges: TERRELL, C.J.
Attorneys: J.H. Swink, for Appellants;
George Couper Gibbs, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ellis,
Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Florida.
Ernest E. Roberts and Whitfield Whitfield, for Appellee.
Filed: Feb. 07, 1939
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In August, 1938, Vincent U. Jones filed his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Dade County pursuant to Section 5029, Compiled General Laws of 1927, *Page 279 praying that appellants as defendants, be restrained from operating that certain place known as "The Merry-Go-Round," on the ground that it was being used for the purpose of gambling and constituted a nuisance. A motion for temporary injunction and to dismiss the bill of complaint were denied and this appeal was prosecuted but limite
Summary: In August, 1938, Vincent U. Jones filed his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Dade County pursuant to Section 5029, Compiled General Laws of 1927, *Page 279 praying that appellants as defendants, be restrained from operating that certain place known as "The Merry-Go-Round," on the ground that it was being used for the purpose of gambling and constituted a nuisance. A motion for temporary injunction and to dismiss the bill of complaint were denied and this appeal was prosecuted but limited..
More
I concur in the above conclusion of the court affirming the judgment of the lower court, because of the view that there is a distinction between the instant case and that of Gulf Theatres, Inc., v. State, 133 Fla. 634, 182 South. Rep. 842.
Section 7832 C.G.L. 1927, provides that whoever shall maintain a place where games of chance are engaged in shall be deemed guilty of a nuisance.
At the time of the issuance of the constitutional writ in Gulf Theatres, Inc., v. State, supra, the so-called "bank
night" plan had not been adjudicated a lottery in violation of the Constitution and it was thought by the court that it would be unjust to allow prosecutions for the operation of "bank night" to continue while it was being determined whether or not the scheme was a use of property denounced by Section 7832 C.G.L. 1927.
That question is not presented in this case and there seems no logical reason for the construction which has been given the court's opinion, viz,: that by means of an injunction under Sec. 7832, supra, and Sect. 5029, C.G.L., all criminal prosecutions should be held in abeyance.
TERRELL, C.J., and WHITFIELD, BROWN, BUFORD and CHAPMAN, J.J., concur.
