Evidence of the general reputation of the frequenters of the house in question, including the accused, as being gamblers, has been held competent on a charge of keeping a gaming house.172

One visit to a gaming house will not sustain a charge of frequenting gaming houses.173

Evidence of several distinct acts of gaming on different days is competent on a charge of being a common gambler, although the offense is alleged to have been committed on a certain day and not as a continuing offense.174

The manner of conducting or playing a game may be explained by professional players, or by others of little experience.175

167 Steven vs. People, 67 Ill., 591; Stoltz vs. People, 4 Scam. (Ill.), 169; Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 2214.

168 Soby vs. People, 134 Ill., 75; Com. vs. Clancy. 154 Mass., 128; Atkins vs. State, 35 Tex. Cr., 394.

169 Bibb vs. State, 84 Ala., 13; Shaw vs. State, 35 Tex. Cr., 394. But to the contrary see Hairston vs. State, 34 Tex. Cr., 346; see State vs. Acker-man, 62 N. J. L., 456.

170 Buchanan vs. State (Tex. Cr.), 33 S. W., 339.

171 Com. vs. Lansdale, 98 Ky., 664;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 2216.

172 State vs. Mosley, 53 Mo. App., 571. Contra as to the house, Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec. 475.

173 Green vs. State, 109 Ind., 175.

174 Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 2247;

State vs. Groves, 21 R. I., 252. 175 Hughes, Cr. Law, Sec. 2248; Com. vs. Adams, 160 Mass., 310.