State v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to the Circuit Court of Lewis county. It is not necessary to aver the names of the games play-' ed, see Revised Statutes pago208,-17tli section, 8th article same act. Pirtles digest vol. 1, pages 517 and 518. 3 J. J. Marshall’s report 133 Montu vs>. Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Lewis county. It is not necessary to aver the names of the games play-' ed, see Revised Statutes pago208,-17tli section, 8th article same act. Pirtles digest vol. 1, pages 517 and 518. 3 J. J. Marshall’s report 133 Montu vs>. Commonwealth of Kentucky. The indictment being founded on the statute,, it is necessary that'the charge contain every element or constituent of the offence, and an expanded definition of the offence must be made 15th sec. R. C., p. 207.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court delivered by
Tompkins Judge.
Mitchell was indicted for permitting gaming in his house, and the indictment being quashed on motion of the defendant, the State prosecutes this appeal to reverse, the judgment of the- circuit court. The indictment is framed on the 17th section, of the 8th article of the act concerning crimes and their punishments page 208-, of the-digest of 1835, and charges that Mitchell did suffer a certain gambling device, commonly called 'cards,, adapted, devised and designed for the purpose of playing at games of chance for money and property, to be used…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Sarah v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- Ike v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
- State v. RunziMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Spratt v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1843
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.