State v. Hamilton
New York Court of General Session of the Peace
The defendant was indicted at this term under Sec. 2, Chap. 454, Vol. 11, Laws of Delaware (Rev. Code, 961), for being “concerned in interest in keeping and exhibiting a certain floor, the same being then and there a device at which a game of chance then and there commonly called crap was played with dice for money.”
Read the full summary
The defendant was indicted at this term under Sec. 2, Chap. 454, Vol. 11, Laws of Delaware (Rev. Code, 961), for being “concerned in interest in keeping and exhibiting a certain floor, the same being then and there a device at which a game of chance then and there commonly called crap was played with dice for money.” At the trial, David Anderson, a witness on behalf of the State, after testifying that he swore out the warrant for the arrest of the defendant Hamilton charging the latter with gambling and also that he testified against the defendant in the Municipal Co”* at the preliminary…
1Opinion of the Court
Lore, C. J.:
We think, under the circumstances, that this testimony is admissible as tending to show guilt.
Cooper, for the defendant, after the State had put in its evidence, which showed that the floor in question was that of one of the rooms of the defendant’s dwelling house, moved that the jury be instructed by the Court to return a verdict of not guilty, on the ground that the floor of a dwelling, as alleged in the indictment, was not such a “device” as was contemplated by the section of the statute under which the indictment was drawn.
State vs. Norton, 9 Houst., 586; 20 Cyc. L. and P.,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. ValentNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1926
- Spain v. RossiterSupreme Court of Delaware · 1923