Durham v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR to.the Jackson Circuit Court. — This was an indictment charging Durham with unlawfully playing a game of cards called Loo, and betting on the game, at Craig’s tavern in Brozmstozen, contrary to the statute, &c. Plea, not guilty. The jury found the defendant guilty of playing as charged, but not guilty of betting. A motion to stay the entering up of judgment was made and overruled, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict..
Read the full summary
ERROR to.the Jackson Circuit Court. — This was an indictment charging Durham with unlawfully playing a game of cards called Loo, and betting on the game, at Craig’s tavern in Brozmstozen, contrary to the statute, &c. Plea, not guilty. The jury found the defendant guilty of playing as charged, but not guilty of betting. A motion to stay the entering up of judgment was made and overruled, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict.. The error relied upon was, that the jury had only found .the defendant below guilty of a part of the charge; and that upon such an imperfect verdict, no judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtHolman, J.
In determining the sufficiency of the verdict, it cannot be material of what part of the indictment the defend*34ant is found not guilty, if the charge of which he is convicted, contains in itself a full and specific offence. By the 4th section 'of the act to prevent gaming, approved the 30th of December, 1816, it is enacted, that if any person shall at any time play in any ordinary, tavern, &c., at any game or games whatsoever, except of athletic exercise; or shall bet on the hands or sides of those that do play, &c., he shall on conviction be fined, &c. It appears very clearly from these…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Davis v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Dohme v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
- United States v. HullDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1882
- State v. KunsIndiana Supreme Court · 1840
- Swinney v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.