Legal Opinion

State v. McMillan

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided October 15, 1896PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Indictment in two counts under Y. S. 5128 and 5130 respectively, to which the respondent demurred. At the June Term, 1896, Caledonia County, Ross, C. J., presiding, there was a pro forma judgment overruling the demurrer and holding the indictment sufficient.

Read the full summary

Indictment in two counts under Y. S. 5128 and 5130 respectively, to which the respondent demurred. At the June Term, 1896, Caledonia County, Ross, C. J., presiding, there was a pro forma judgment overruling the demurrer and holding the indictment sufficient. The indictment, omitting the formal introduction, was as follows: That, William H. McMillan of St. Johnsbury in the County of Caledonia, on the first day of June, A. D. 1896, and at divers other times and days both before and since said first day of June, at St. Johnsbury in the County of Caledonia aforesaid, did keep and cause to be…

1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.

This indictment, which is demurred to, contains two counts. The first is based on section 5128 of the Yt. Sts., and the second, on section 5130. These sections, with the others under the head of “Stock Gambling,” were first passed in 1888, in an act to suppress “bucket-shops and gambling in stocks, bonds, petroleum, cotton, grain and provisions.” It was the intention of that act, as therein declared, to prevent, punish and prohibit within this State, the business engaged in and conducted in places commonly known and designated as bucket-shops, including the practice commonly known as…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API