State v. Mohr
Missouri Court of Appeals
.Appeal from the Callaway Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Hockaday, Judge. (1) It will be observed from the indictment that the “gambling device” is not named. The indictment says, “a certain gambling device ‘called7 a pack of cards.77 The indictment should allege that the-gambling device ‘was7 a pack of cards.
Read the full summary
.Appeal from the Callaway Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Hockaday, Judge. (1) It will be observed from the indictment that the “gambling device” is not named. The indictment says, “a certain gambling device ‘called7 a pack of cards.77 The indictment should allege that the-gambling device ‘was7 a pack of cards. (2) The indictment charges that the device was “called a pack of cards.77 If the device had been alleged to ■ have been a pack of cards, the indictment would yet be bad, for, “a pack of cards” is not a gaming table, bank or device within the meaning of section 3808, nor 3810, Statutes,…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
The defendant was convicted under-section 3810, Bevised Statute, 1889, for permitting “a certain gambling device called a pack of cards, designed and used for the purpose of playing games of chance for money and property, to be used for the purpose of' gaming in a certain building there situated, and in a. certain room in the said building by him occupied, and of which said room in said building he, the said Greorge Mohr, then and there had the possession and control.”
Many of the objections urged here, like those in a like case against this defendant, decided at this term,, cannot be noticed,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. MosbyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- State v. DysonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- State v. HerryfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
- State v. ScaggsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
3Cited by2 opinions
- City of Moberly v. DeskinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- State v. TorphyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896