Drew v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from the Crawford Circuit Cou?'t. Indictment for gaming, determined in the Crawford Circuit Court, at the August Term, 1848, before the Hon. Wm. W. Floyd, Judge.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Crawford Circuit Cou?'t. Indictment for gaming, determined in the Crawford Circuit Court, at the August Term, 1848, before the Hon. Wm. W. Floyd, Judge. Indictment in substance as follows: “The Grand Jurors for, áte., duly selected, áte., upon their oath present that John Drew and William Coody, late, áte., on the first day of December, A. D. 1847, with force and arms, at, áte., did bet a large sum of money, to wit: the sum of one dollar, at and upon a certain unlawful game called faro, against the peace, áte. “ And the Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
It is objected in this case that the indictment is bad because it does not disclose the name of the person with whom the appellant bet, nor aver his name to be unknown to the Jurors.
When third persons are injured or designed to be injured, or when their designation is a material part of the description of the offence charged, it is, in general, indispensable that they be named, or else it must be averred that their names are unknown to the Jurors. But it is certainly not necessary in an indictment for a misdemeanor, although it ought to be equal in certainty to a declaration, to do more than…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. BatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1846
- State v. AmesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1825