11 IND 516 - Winemiller v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1916

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Hanna, J.

¶1This was a prosecution for “keeping a room to be used for gaming.” Trial, conviction, &c.

¶2The affidavit and information state the names of certain persons who gamed, and state that other persons did *517so, whose names were unknown. On the trial, the person who filed the affidavit testified that, at the time he filed the same, he knew the names of those persons, and so stated to the district attorney. Thereupon he stated the names of several persons other than those mentioned in the information, &c.

A. P. Hovey, for the appellant.

¶3It is now objected that, upon such disclosure, the defendant was entitled to a verdict.

¶4It was not necessary to have set forth the names of those who gamed. Sowle v. The State, at this term (1). Therefore, proof that such persons were either known or unknown, could not affect the case, and that they so gamed should, only have been received to establish the purpose for which the room was kept, under this charge.

¶5Proof having been made that, with the knowledge of the defendant, certain persons had gamed in his room, it was a question for the jury whether it was kept by him for that purpose. Armstrong v. The State, 4 Blackf. 247.

¶6Per Curiam. — The judgment is affirmed, &c.

¶7Ante, 492.