Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1881No. 9066PublishedCited by 7 opinions

From the Wabash Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Newcomb, C.

The appellant was indicted in two counts, and convicted on a jury trial, for violation of the first clause of section 29 of the act defining misdemeanors, which provides that “If any person shall keep, or suffer his or her building, arbor, booth, shed, or tenement, to be used for gaming, * * * he shall be fined not less than fifty, nor more than five hundred dollars.”

The first count of the indictment charged the defendant with keeping a certain house and room to be used, and *587suffered the same to be used, for gaming, and did then and there unlawfully allow divers persons (naming…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. White v. WrightOhio Supreme Court · 1848
  2. Crawford v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Mount v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1856
  4. Carr v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Sumner v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1881

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kleespies v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. State v. SandersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
  3. Hardesty v. HineIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Hopkins v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  5. Alexander v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1885

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API