Whatley v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
Gaming. Appeal from Tallapoosa Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewek. Will Whatley was convicted of gaming or permitting games to be played by minors, and be appeals. • Counsel insists that the indictment does not charge any offense, and that there was no evidence to sustain the first count of the indictment, and hence there was nothing to sustain the judgment of conviction, but he cites no authority in support of his contention.
Read the full summary
Gaming. Appeal from Tallapoosa Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewek. Will Whatley was convicted of gaming or permitting games to be played by minors, and be appeals. • Counsel insists that the indictment does not charge any offense, and that there was no evidence to sustain the first count of the indictment, and hence there was nothing to sustain the judgment of conviction, but he cites no authority in support of his contention. The indictment followed as nearly as possible the words of the statute, and was therefore sufficient. The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
No proof was offered on the trial tending to show that any minor played on the defendant’s pool table, or loitered on the premises, as charged in the first count of the indictment. Therefore the defendant’s conviction cannot be sustained under that count. — -Code, § 6992; Riggins v. State, 7 Ala. App. 168, 62 South. 295. For this reason we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the .sufficiency of the first count. However, it is not improper to suggest that the safer rule, where no form is prescribed, and the language of the statute is descriptive *203of the offense, is to follow the language of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Emmonds v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Mazett v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1914
- Roquemore v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Russ v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- Riggins v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1913