State v. Falk
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Prosecution for violation of the Act of 1898 to prevent pool selling, brought to the City Court of Bridgeport and thence by the defendant’s appeal to the criminal term of the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County, where the accused was tried and convicted by the jury before Walsh, J., and appealed for alleged errors in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Prosecution for violation of the Act of 1898 to prevent pool selling, brought to the City Court of Bridgeport and thence by the defendant’s appeal to the criminal term of the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County, where the accused was tried and convicted by the jury before Walsh, J., and appealed for alleged errors in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. I. The court erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment, as the first count clearly charged two offenses. There is a manifest distinction between the crime of “ buying and…
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, C. J.
The defendant was prosecuted for violating the provisions of chapter LXVIII. of the Public Acts of 1893. The information contained three counts. He was found guilty on the first and third, and not guilty on the second. There was a motion in arrest of judgment which was overruled. One fine only was imposed.
The defendant appealed to this court and has assigned numerous reasons for his appeal. If either the first or third *256count is a good one, then the complaint is sufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment. We think the first count is good. It does not charge two offenses. It charges the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. CostelloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1892
- State v. BosworthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. ScottSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
- State v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- McCall v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1916