Jester v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hot Spring ^Circuit Court. The Hon. J. C. Murray, Circuit Judge, presiding. It is submitted, 1st. That there is a fatal variance between the allegations in the indictment, and the evidence as to the persons by whom, the game was played. Parrott vs. State, 5 Eng. R: 82. 6 Eng. 169. 13 Ark. 703. 2d.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hot Spring ^Circuit Court. The Hon. J. C. Murray, Circuit Judge, presiding. It is submitted, 1st. That there is a fatal variance between the allegations in the indictment, and the evidence as to the persons by whom, the game was played. Parrott vs. State, 5 Eng. R: 82. 6 Eng. 169. 13 Ark. 703. 2d. That upon a fair and reasonable interpretation of sec. 104, chap. 52, Digest, p. 403, the State should not be permitted to harrass a party with an indictment for a length of time, then quash it on her own motion, and then avail herself of the time it was pending to preclude the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Watkins
The indictment, preferred at the February term, 1853, of the Hot Spring Circuit Court, charged that the appellants, on the tenth day of March, A. D. 1852, at&c., bet a certain sum of money at an unlawful game at cards called draw pocre, then and there played by them together. Asecond count alleged the game played to be called pocre. On the trial the State proved that, at the August term 1852, an indictment which, leaving out of view any variance between them, the jury were authorized to .infer was for the same offence, was preferred against Jester, Ready, Morehead and one Cyrus A. Hale,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. LightOregon Supreme Court · 1889
- State v. ParnellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1855
- State v. RoodOregon Supreme Court · 1963
- People v. JohnsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1934
- State v. TownsendMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.