Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Blackf. 267

State v. Little

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1842

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1842-11-15

<p>Betting—Indictments.—Indictment for unlawfully winning, &e., by betting on the result of an election. 2[eld, that it was no objection to the indictment, that the time when the bet was alleged to have been made was after the day of the election.</p> <p>Same.—An averment in such indictment, that the defendant did unlawfully win of, and take from, one N. O. two notes, &c., by betting on the result of the election, shows, with sufficient certainty, that the bet was made with A. 0.(a)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1842-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1888

3 state decisions

1018421850186018701880decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sullivan, J.

¶1The defendant was indicted for, that on the 6th day of August, 1840, at, &c., he did then and there unlawfully win of, and take from, one N. G. two promissory notes commonly called treasury notes, of the value of five dollar each, by then and there betting upon the result of the Augus election in Marion county for senator, &o. The Court, oi motion of the defendant, quashed the indictment.

¶2Two objections are urged against the indictment. The firs, is, that the election was held on thé 3d of August, and not on the 6th as alleged; and that the betting is laid three days after the result of the election. The second objection is, that the indictment does not sufficiently show who were the parties to the bet.

¶3Neither objection is tenable. It is sufficient to say in reply to the first objection, that the day named in the indictment is not material, provided - the time stated be previous to the find--inv i' the indictment. But if it were necessary to prove the *285time as it is alleged, a wrong date can not avail the defendant on a motion to quash. As to the second, we think the indictment is sufficiently certain. The averment that the defendant did win of, and take from, A. G. two notes, &c., by betting on the result of the election, does, by necessary implication, mean that the bet was with A. G. ■

H. O’Neal, for the State.PL. Brown, for the defendant.

¶4Per Curiam.—The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

/6/blackf/267 · .json · Public domain