Schmetzer v. State

Stone, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was indicted in Baltimore City, for keeping a billiard table for use, without taking out a license. There are two counts in the indictment; one for the violation of an ordinance of the City of Baltimore, and the other for a violation of the Act of Assembly. The appellant pleaded not guilty to both counts.

At the trial of the case, the State offered the following evidence: “ That the said billiard table was accessible to any one ■coming into the place mentioned in the indictment, to play thereon; the understanding, however, being that, in games played on said table, the loser must treat the winning player, from the articles of merchandise for sale at the bar; the games were not otherwise paid for; the •articles of merchandise so sold were of the same quality, •and sold at the same price, as those sold to customers who ■did not use the table.” To this testimony when offered, the appellant excepted, but the Court overruled the exception, and permitted the testimony to be offered, and the verdict being against the appellant, he has brought the case here. The law seems to provide that every billiard table, that is kept for use in this State, is liable to. taxation in the ⁴²² shape of a license, except a table kept for private use. The 8th section of Art. 12, of the Revised Code provides as follows: “Any person or persons beeping or exhibiting for use a billiard table or tables, without first obtaining a license therefor, shall, etc.” The only exception to this is a table kept for private use. We think it manifest, that on a trial under an indictment like the present, any legal evidence tending to prove that the table in question was kept for public, and not for private use, is clearly admissible.

The Act of Assembly divides billiard tables into two classes, those kept for public and those kept for private use.' The latter are not taxed. Now, we cannot conceive any evidence more pertinent to the issue, whether this table was kept for public or private use, than that offered on the part of the State, “that this table was accessible to any one coming into the place to play thereon.” A table kept for private use, is kept for the use of the owner, or such persons as he may choose to invite, and is not “ accessible ” to any one, who may choose to play a game on it; the evidence was therefore clearly admissible to show that the table in question was not kept for private, but for public use. But it has been insisted before us that, although the appellant may have kept this table for public, and not for private use, still he is not liable for the tax, unless he-made some charge,