Hinkle v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Indictment, From ti-ie Circuit Court for Jefferson County. Settingup agamjng table may be an entire offence; keeping a gaming table and inducing others to bet upon it, may also, constitute a distinct offence: for either, unconnected with the other, an injiictment will lie. ■Jfet when both ¿re perpetrated by the same person at the same jitne, they constitute but one of-fence, for which pne count is suf|icient, and for which but one penalty can be in Jlicted.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Robertson
The plaintiff having been fined five hundred dollars, on conviction, upon an indictment charging him with having set up, and kept a gaming table, and induced others to bet at it—only two questions are presented on this writ of error, prosecuted by him, to reverse the judgment: First:—whether the proof was sufficient. Second—whether offences, which may be distinct, being charged in the same count, the indictment is good?
We are of opinion that there is no error. First. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding, that the facts charged were true; and to justify the deduction also, that…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Stearns v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1895
- State v. ColgateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
- Wingard v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
- Byrne v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Phillips v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1867
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.