Baker v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Error to Charles county court In a criminal prosecution. The indictment .stated, that Baker, (the plaintiff in error,) on the 21st of March 1803, “unlawfully did setup a Faro Table, for the purpose of gaming, in a house in Charles Town, in the county aforesaid, by the said John Baker for that purpose rented, against the form of the act of assembly in that case made and provided, and against the peace,, dignity, and government of the state.” Not Guilty was pleaded.
Read the full summary
Error to Charles county court In a criminal prosecution. The indictment .stated, that Baker, (the plaintiff in error,) on the 21st of March 1803, “unlawfully did setup a Faro Table, for the purpose of gaming, in a house in Charles Town, in the county aforesaid, by the said John Baker for that purpose rented, against the form of the act of assembly in that case made and provided, and against the peace,, dignity, and government of the state.” Not Guilty was pleaded. At the trial the attorney for the state, to support and maintain the prosecution, gave in evidence to the jury that Baker, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Chase, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court, declaring that the act of 1797, ch. 110, only applied to dwelling-houses, out-houseo, and places occupied by tavern-keepers, &.C. No opinion was given as to the question, whether or not the court below were right in refusing to permit the counsel for the traverser to argue to the jury upon the construction which they had given to the act of assembly, in their direction to the jury, on the prayer which was made by counsel. The chief judge said he was prepared to give his opinion that the counsel had no such right, afler he had called upon the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. SouthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Marcus v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1860