gambling device to be in a house "belonging" to the defendant, "or by him occupied, or of which he has at the time the possession or control," it is a sufficient defense that he had sublet the premises to a third person, who had the exclusive right and possession. But if the letting was for the purpose of the unlawful use, it will avail nothing.2 -- § 877. Suffering minors (Mistake of age).- Under the statutes making punishable the suffering of minors to play at gaming, it is a sufficient defense that, after due diligence and proper inquiry, the defendant honestly believed the person not to be a minor, but to have attained his majority; though, on the other hand, this has been denied. It is the same question of mistake of fact which the author has discussed in other connections." § 878. Place of gaming. The place of the gaming is under some of the statutes an element in the offense." Various terms to designate it have already been explained; as, “public place,' "public house," "outhouse," or "outhouse where people resort."" P., 173 Ill. 19, 50 N. E. R. 322. Contra, 1S. v. Ebert, 40 Mo. 186; Scott v. S., 29 Ga. 263. And see Robinson v. S., 24 Tex. 152. See, as to the Arkansas statutes and their interpretation, S. v. Stillwell, 20 Ark. 96; Stith v. S., 13 Ark. 680. As to Indiana, see S. v. Hope, 15 Ind. 474; [Diebel v. S., 68 Miss. 725. 9 S. R. 354; Borches v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. R. 517, 21 S. W. R. 192.] 2 Com. v. Adams, 109 Mass. 344; [Stevenson v. S., 83 Ga. 575, 10 S. E. 9 Ante, § 299; [Skinner v. S., 87 Ala. 105, 6 S. R. 399; Cole v. S., 28 Tex. Ap. 536, 13 S. W. R. 859; Galloway v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 26 S. W. R. 67; Graham v. S. (Ala.), 16 S. R. 934; Humphreys v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 30 S. W. R. 1066; Turberville v. S., 37 Tex. Cr. R. 145, 38 S. W. R. 1010; Douglass v. S., 18 Ind. Ap. 289, 48 N. E. R. 9.] 10 Ante, § 291; Smith v. S., 37 Ala. 472; [Stockton v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 44 S. W. R. 509.] 998 R. 234; Morgan v. S., 117 Ind. 569, 19 N. E. R. 154; McPherson v. Simmons, 63 Ark. 593, 40 S. W. R. 78.] 3 Ante, § 852. 4 Stern v. S., 53 Ga. 229, 230, [21 Am. R. 266; Bird v. S. (Ind.), 2 West. R. 226; Taylor v. S. (Ind.), 5 West. R. 673.] 5 Com. v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6. 6 Ante, §§ 596a, 596b, 631a, 632, 632α, 663-665; Crim. Law, I, §§ 301-310; [S. v. Johnson, 44 Mo. Ap. 88.] 7 Ante, § 221. 37 Ala. 469. 8 Ante, § 298; And see Bass v. S., Purcell v. Com., 14 11 Ante, § 291; Swallow v. S., 20 Ala. 30; S. v. Norton, 19 Tex. 102, 205; Wheelock v. S., 15 Tex. 260; Cain v. S., 30 Ala. 534; [Sisk v. S., 28 Tex. Ap. 432, 13 S. W. R. 647; Downey v. S., 90 Ala. 644, 8 S. R. 869; Pickens v. S. (Ala.), 14 S. R. 672; Armstrong v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 31 S. W. R. 664; Hopkins v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 33 S. W. R. 975.] 4 Then we have, as probably not needing explanation, such expressions as "house where spirituous liquors are retailed,"1 "saloon," "the premises," "public gambling-house," "highway" (meaning a public way in distinction from a private one),5 "place." There are other statutes against gaming in particular places, in distinction from gaming generally; but they have not led to expositions of doctrine rendering advisable a further consideration of the topic. Grat. 679; Com. v. Sylvester, 13 Allen, 247; Lowrie v. S., 43 Tex. 602; [Dickey v. S., 68 Ala. 508; Foster v. S., 84 Ala. 451, 4 S. R. 833; S. v. Brast, 31 W. Va. 380, 7 S. E. R. 11; Dailey v. S., 27 Tex. Ap. 569, 11 S. W. R. 636; Comer v. S., 26 Tex. Ap. 509, 10 S. W. R. 106; Franklin v. S., 91 Ala. 23, 8 S. R. 678; Borches v. S., 31 Tex. Cr. R. 517, 21 S. W. R. 192; Gomprecht v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 37 S. W. R. 734; Goldstein v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 35 S. W. R. 289; Nichols v. S., 111 Ala. 58, 20 S. R. 564; Ford v. S. (Ala.), 26 S. R. 503; White v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. R. 137, 45 S. W. R. 579; Crutcher v. S., 39 Tex. Cr. R. 233, 45 S. W. R. 594.] 1 Napier v. S., 50 Ala. 168; Ray v. S.. 50 Ala. 172; Phillips v. S., 51 Ala. 20; Johnson v. S., 36 Tex. 198; Gal breath v. S., 36 Tex. 200; Harcrow v. S., 2 Tex. Ap. 511. A statute made punishable the keeping of a "billiardtable in connection with a house where spirituous liquors are retailed, as an appendage thereto; " and the construction was that the room for gaming need not be under the same roof with the other, but it is sufficient that the two constitute one establishment and are contiguous. Smith v. S., 22 Ala. 54. And see S. v. Smitherman, 1 Ire. 14; [Watson v. S., 13 Tex. Ap. 479; Stebbins v. S., 22 Tex. Ap. 32, 2 S. W. R. 617; Springfield v. S. (Tex. Ap.), 12S. W. R. 1010; McCalman v. S., 96 Ala. 98, 11 S. R. 408; Koenig v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 26 S. W. R. 835; Wuster v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 26 S. W. R. 839.] 2 O'Brien v. S., 10 Tex. Ap. 544; [Snow v. S., 50 Ark. 557, 9 S. W. R. 306.] And see Kitson v. Ann Arbor, 26 Mich. 325; S. v. Mansker, 36 Tex. 364. 3 S. v. Black, 9 Ire. 378. 4 Lockhart v. S., 10 Tex. 275; Rice v. S., 10 Tex. 545. And see Buck v. S., 1 Ohio St. 61; [Stevenson v. S., 83 Ga. 575. 10 S. E. R. 234; Com. v. Adams, 160 Mass 310, 31 N. E. R. 851; Com. v. Blankinship, 165 Mass. 40, 42 N. E. R. 115; Wortelsky v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 33 S. W. R. 1079; Toll v. S., 40 Fla. 169, 23 S. R. 942.] 5 Mills v. S., 20 Ala. 86; Crim. Law, II, § 1266. And see ante, § 298. 6 Eastwood v. Miller, Law R. 9 Q. B. 440; Haigh v. Sheffield, Law R. 10 Q. B. 102; Bows v. Fenwick, Law R. 9 C. P. 339; Gallaway v. Maries, 8 Q. B. D. 275. 7 See Com. v. Price, 8 Leigh, 757; Mount v. S., 7 Sm. & M. 277; Buck v. S., 1 Ohio St. 61; Stith v. S., 13 Ark. 680; Blanton v. S., 5 Blackf. 560; Calvert v. Com., 5 B. Monr. 264; Baker v. S., 2 Har. & J. 5; S. v. Records, 4 Harring. (Del.) 554; S. v. Fearson, 2 Md. 310; S. v. Mathis, 3 Pike, 84; Roberts v. Com., 11 B. Monr. 3; [S. v. Norwood, 94 N. C. 935; S. v. Eaton, 85 Me. 237, 27 Atl. R. 126; Ransome v. S., 91 Tenn. 716, 20 S. W. R. 310, 15 Crim. Law Mag. 100; Swigert v. P., 154 Ill. 284, 40 N. E. R. 482, 27 Chic. Leg. News, 211; S. v. Metcalf, 65 Mo. Ap. 681, 2 Mo. Ap. R. 1269; Cochran v. S., 102 Ga. 631, 59 S. E. R. 438. It has been held that an agent of a firm $879. "Common gambler." There are analogies' for the proposition that, for one to be a "common gambler" under a statute, he must have gambled in at least three specific instances, which should be shown against him, with other facts. But a Kentucky case holds a single instance sufficient, when taken in connection with circumstances, like the display of gaming implements. Said Underwood, J.: "While many acts of gaming may be palliated, so as to show that the general conduct and practices of an individual are not such as to constitute him a common gambler; on the other hand, a single act may be attended with such circumstances as to justify a conviction." But evidence that the defendant "was and is by reputation a common gambler" was adjudged incompetent. This offense, like any other, should be proved as committed in the county of the indictment.3 § 880. Felony or misdemeanor.-There are, or have been, statutes making some aggravated forms of gaming felony. But generally in our states it is misdemeanor." § 881. Assisting at game.- Under a statute to punish those who should "set up or keep" the forbidden device, or “induce or permit any person or persons to bet any money or other thing" thereon, it was held that one to be within the inhibition need not personally bet; and, if he deals the cards, he commits the offense, though he has no interest in the profits of the game. Likewise one who procures another to lay a wager for his profit,' or bets beyond state limits, who takes orders for the firm, may be criminally liable under statute prohibiting bucket shops. Soby v. P., 134 Ill. 66, 13 Crim. Law Mag. 63, 25 N. E. R. 109. See also P. v. Hess, 85 Mich. 128, 48 N. W. R. 181.] P. v. Shear, 7 Cal 139; Hayes v. S., supra; [S. v. Shaw, 39 Minn. 153, 39 N. W. R. 305.] 6 Com. v. Burns, 4 J. J. Mar. 177. [Or keeping watch to prevent detection. Earp v. S. (Tex. Ap.), 13 S. W. R. 888. But simply holding the 1 Post, § 1018; Crim. Law, I, § 1102; bets in a game of craps for a comII, § 65. 2 Com. v. Hopkins, 2 Dana, 418. And see S. v. Markham, 15 La. An. 498; Howard v. S., 64 Ind. 516. 3 Bowe v. S., 25 Ind. 415; Hamilton v. S., 25 Ind. 426. Ante, § 135; Hayes v. S., 55 Ind. 99; [Bibb v. S., 83 Ala. 84, 3 S. R. 711; Bibb v. S., 84 Ala. 13, 4 S. R. 275.] pensation of five cents each alternate throw, and having no interest otherwise, is not keeping or exhibiting, etc. Chappell v. S., 26 Tex. Ap. 310, 11 S. W. R. 411.] 7 Williams v. S., 12 Sm. & M. 58. But see, on this general doctrine, O'Blennis v. S., 12 Mo. 311; English v. Young, 10 B. Monr. 141. with money which another furnishes,' is equally guilty as though he staked personally his own money,2-a doctrine liable to be varied by the special terms of the statute.3 1 Iseley v. S., 8 Blackf. 403. And see, on this point and the last, Com. v. Drew, 3 Cush. 279; Hinkle v. Com., 4 Dana, 518; S. v. Purdom, 3 Mo. 114; Ward v. S., 22 Ala. 16; [Atkins v. S., 95 Tenn. 474, 32 S. W. R. 391; S. v. De Boy, 117 N. C. 702, 23 S. E. R. 167; Douglass v. S., 18 Ind. Ap. 289, 48 N. E. R. 9; Letz v. S. (Tex. Ap.), 21 S. 2 And see Stone v. S., 3 Tex. Ap. 675. For other points, see Elliott v. S., 26 Ala. 78; Johnson v. S., 4 Sneed, 614. Ante, § 145; Bass v. S., 37 Ala. 469; [Jeffries v. S., 61 Ark. 308, 32 S. W. R. 1080; Varnells v. Com., 83 Ky. 193.] 583 CHAPTER LI. GAMING-THE PROCEDURE. §§ 882, 883. Introduction. 884-892. Particular forms of gaming. 893-917. Particular questions. 918-926. Specially of betting on games. 927-930. Specially of horse-racing and the like. § 882. What for this chapter.- By reason of the great numbers and diversities of the statutes, we shall in this chapter, as in the last, keep within general doctrines, and references to the cases which will enable the reader to trace them for himself into their details; assuming that he has before him the books local to his state. § 883. How chapter divided. We shall consider, I. The procedure for some particular forms of gaming; II. Particular questions of procedure; III. Specially of betting on games; IV. Specially of horse-racing and the like. I. THE PROCEDURE FOR SOME PARTICULAR FORMS OF GAMING. § 884. Indictment in general. The indictment for each of the several forms of offense is drawn after the general rules for the indictment on statutes, and upon the particular statutory terms, to all of which it must conform.1 § 885. Fraudulent winning.-In England the statute of 9 Anne, ch. 14, which appears to have been in force until 1845, made it an offense to win "any sum or sums of money or other valuable thing," by "any fraud or shift, cosenage, circumven 1 Post, §§ 908, 909; S. v. Jeffrey, 33 Ark. 136; Zook v. S., 47 Ind. 463; Alexander v. S., 48 Ind. 394; Gallagher v. S., 26 Wis. 423; Carper v. S., 27 Ohio St. 572; S. v. Allen, 69 Ind. 124; Johnson v. S., 36 Tex. 198; Donniger v. S., 52 Ind. 326; Com. v. Edds, 14 Gray, 406; S. v. Cooster, 10 Iowa, 453; Perez v. S., 48 Ala. 356; S. v. Alvey, 26 Tex. 155; S. v. Ar nold, 37 Tex. 409; S. v. Shult, 41 Tex. 548; Longworth v. S., 41 Tex. 508; S. v. Howery, 41 Tex. 506; Elsberry v. S., 41 Tex. 158; Roberts v. S., 32 Ohio St. 171; Davis v. S., 32 Ohio St. 24; Howard v. S., 64 Ind. 516; S. v. Homan, 41 Tex. 155; Galbreath v. S., 36 Tex. 200; Herron v. S., 36 Tex. 285; S. v. Roderica, 35 Tex. 507; S. v. Jurgins, 31 Tex. 588; S. v. Stogsdale, 67 |