People v. Ambrose

122 Cal.App.2d Supp. 966 (1953) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

v.

M. F. AMBROSE et al., Appellants.

California Court of Appeals.

December 31, 1953. James M. Thuesen for Appellants.

C. M. Ozias, Denver C. Peckinpah and Charles F. Hamlin for Respondent.

CONLEY, J.

The defendants appeal from a judgment convicting them of the violation of an ordinance of the city of Fresno, which forbids the conducting of gambling games. Two points were raised on the appeal; first, it is contended that the evidence does not justfy the verdict of guilty; and, secondly, it is urged that one of the instructions was erroneus.

[1] The first point is not well taken, for the evidence amply supports the verdict. The record shows that the defendants operated premises at 1021 Broadway in the city of Fresno; that on June 24, 1953, at one of the card tables in their establishment, supervised by a dealer employed by them, a game of panguingui was played by seven persons who bought chips from the dealer, and who used the chips in the game; [122 Cal.App.2d Supp. 968] whenever a player quit the game he cashed in his remaining chips and was paid in money by the dealer; whenever a new player joined the game he paid the dealer in money for his stack of chips. There was only one witness, a police officer of the city of Fresno, who, in plain clothes, observed the game in the defendants' cardroom, and testified in detail as to what he saw. None of the defendants took the stand, and they called no witnesses.

Panguingui is defined by Webster's New International Dictionary, second edition, as "A Tagalog gambling game." The uncontradicted evidence was that the game played was panguingui; the account of the game contained in the record checks with the description of panguingui as set forth in works of reference. (See Culbertson's Hoyle, "The New Encyclopedia of Games with Official Rules," p. 47; Scarne on Cards, p. 150.) With the added proof that the game was played for chips convertible into money through the dealer, the guilt of the defendants was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellants argue that the following instruction was prejudicially erroneous: "You are instructed that if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants conducted or allowed to be conducted, a game played with cards for money, either directly or indirectly, or for checks, credit, chips or any other article exchangeable for or redeemable in money, it is your duty to convict the defendants."