Legal Opinion

Dormer v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1850PublishedCited by 10 opinions

ERROR to the Randolph Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtPerkins, J.

Indictment for keeping a gaming house. The indictment charged, in the same count, that the defendant kept, and suffered his house to be used, for gaming, &c. It is insisted that this rendered the indictment bad, on the ground that it charged two offences. We think but one offence was charged. State v. Slocum, 8 Blackf. 315, and cases cited. — 2 Russ. on Cr. 708. Had the allegation been in the disjunctive, that the defendant kept, or suffered, &c., it would probably have been bad for uncertainty. Arch. Cr. Pl. 43.

The indictment contained the names of certain persons who, it averred, had played…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. SlocumIndiana Supreme Court · 1847

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Howard v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1921
  2. McLaughlin v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Lee v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Davis v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Marshall v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1890

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API