IN RE SEA ISLAND CORP.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's quashing of the Hotel and Restaurant Commissioner's order suspending Sea Island Corp.'s licenses, holding that the evidence was insufficient to show that the hotel owner or manager knowingly permitted or consented to gambling on the premises, as required by statute.
The evidence was insufficient to support the Commissioner's order. The statute requires knowledge on the part of the owner, lessee, or manager, or consent to the use of space for gambling purposes. The isolated, unauthorized presence of bookmakers on a single afternoon without the manager's or owner's knowledge or consent does not violate the statute.
“The statute contemplates that there must be knowledge of the gambling on part of the owner, lessee or manager or that he must have given his consent to the use of space on the hotel premises for that purpose.”
Establishes the statutory requirement of knowledge or consent as essential to violate the gambling statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 3, 1952, two bookmakers were observed conducting business on the hotel grounds, distributing scratch sheets and racing information. There was…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice.
Pursuant to hearing as required by Section 511.051, F.S.A., the Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commissioner, hereafter referred to as the Commissioner, issued an order suspending for 30 days certain licenses of appellee. On appeal by certiorari the Circuit Court quashed the order of the Commissioner. We are confronted with an appeal from the order of the Circuit Court.
The sole point for determination is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support the order of the Circuit Court quashing the order of the Commissioner. . The answer to this question turns on whether or not the evidence shows that the “owner, lessee, or .manager, or any other person having, exclusively or with others, either direct or indirect;,charge, control or management of such hotel * * * knowingly lets, leases or gives space * * * for gambling purposes * * Such is the language of the pertinent statute and the evidence should meet it’s requirements.
There is evidence that two bookmakers plied their trade about the hotel and grounds promiscuously on March 3, 1952, but there is no showing that such was their habit or that knowledge of their conduct was brought to the owner, lessee, manager, or other person having control of the hotel. The statute contemplates that there must be knowledge of the gambling on part of the owner, lessee or manager or that he must have given his consent to the use of space on the hotel premises for that purpose. The fact that “desperadoes” or others in the guise of bookmakers secretly invaded the premises of the hotel on a single afternoon in the absence of the manager or owner and without his knowledge or consent, distributed Harvey A. Jr. scratch sheets and other racing information, is not sufficient to convict the manager of violating the statute. •
The chancellor so found. He was the assayer of the facts, there was ample evidence to support his findings and there is nó showing of bad faith, abuse of discretion or improper influence. Under such circumstances we will not disturb his findings. The law does not require that che owner or manager of a hotel post himself at the threshold and challenge the purpose and motive of every guest that enters. He is expected to exercise reasonable care that his place be not used as a refuge for gambling or gamblers to ply their trade.
The statute clearly contemplates something in the nature of a liaison between the owner or operator of the hotel and the bookmaker or other person who uses any portion of the hotel premises for gambling. This is the gist of the case and a careful review of the evidence does not show this, so the judgment appealed from should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., and JONES, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Alliance FOR Conservation OF Natural Res. IN Pinellas Cnty. v. Furen, 104 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…subject to like conditions as appeals in chancery are taken.” There have been several cases appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida from decisions of the Circuit Court on certiorari under the above act, including: In re Sea Island Corp., Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 769; In re Smith, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 353; and Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission v. Dowler, Fla.1958, 99 So. 2d 852. In the case of Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission v. Dowler, supra, the Supreme Court held that though under Constitutional…