Vowells v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 8 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. (Bi'ief not in record.) 1. The indictment is not sufficiently certain, in that it charges the defendant with keeping a faro bank “for himself and another.” Two offenses are charged, and the defendant could not know which he would be required to defend. (Commonwealth v. Perrigo, 3 Met., 5.) 2. The Commonwealth must prove the charge as made.
Read the full summary
Case 8 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. (Bi'ief not in record.) 1. The indictment is not sufficiently certain, in that it charges the defendant with keeping a faro bank “for himself and another.” Two offenses are charged, and the defendant could not know which he would be required to defend. (Commonwealth v. Perrigo, 3 Met., 5.) 2. The Commonwealth must prove the charge as made. Proof that the defendant kept the faro bank for himself does not support the charge that he kept it for himself and another. (Clarke v. Commonwealth, 16 B. M., 211; Mount v. Commonwealth, 1 Duv., 90;…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OE THE COURT.
The charge in the indictment against appellant is, that he did on the-day of July, 18S3, unlawfully set up, exhibit, and keep for himself and another a *54faro bank, whereby money and other things might be and were won and lost, e,tc.
tlm averment that the offense was committed on the - day of July, 1883, imports the commission of it anterior to the twenty-fourth day of the same month when the indictment was found, and can not be fairly made to mean it was subsequent to that time.
The language of the statute under which the indictment was found is:…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Rema v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Conrand v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- White v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1915
- Sergent v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
- Click v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.