06 Jul During the period of surveillance and at the time of the raid, appellant was always found present

Donald v. United States, 70 App.D.C. 14, 102 F.2d 618; Beard v. United States, 65 App.D.C. 231, 82 F.2d 837, certiorari denied, 298 U.S. 655, 56 S.Ct. 675, 80 L.Ed. 1382.

It is not necessary that the appellant should have been in permanent possession of the premises, or that he be a lessee or even a keeper

We are equally certain that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury might conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was at least in the immediate control of the premises during the occasions when the gaming was in progress. It is only incumbent upon the Government to show that he was in charge, possession, or control of the place when the offense occurred.

United States, we held that in these circumstances and without any testimony on appellant's behalf to explain his presence in the room, the jury had a perfect right to conclude that he was in control or charge of the concession

Donald v. United States, 70 App.D.C. 14, 102 F.2d 618; see Gullatt v. State ex rel. Collins, 169 Ga. 538, 150 S.E. 825.

Often he was found in the rear room, from which he would unbolt the intervening door after some delay during which his "visitors" were heard hustling through the back door. In these instances, appellant was found alone in the rear of the premises. On some occasions the appellant protested vigorously at the intrusion of the police; at other times he volunteered or agreed to conduct them through the premises, at one time allowing them to surprise the six patrons, as previously stated. The appellant was recognized as one of the sixteen men who scrambled over the back fence upon the occasion when the rear room occupants had been "tipped off" to the police call. When the police entered the basement during the final visit and arrest, they observed appellant just coming from the money locker at the end of the room.