Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Ind. 30

Winehart v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1854

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1854-12-14

<p>Ignorance of the law will not excuse a man from punishment on a criminal accusation.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1926

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-12-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Perkins, J.

¶1Indictment for keeping a gaming house. Conviction and fine in the Circuit Court.

¶2The question is on the weight of evidence. It is proved, that the defendant kept a grocery store, in which he sold beer, cigars, &c.; and two witnesses testified that-they had often played cards in an adjoining room in the house, for cigars, beer, &c.; that the defendant did not know it was wrong to permit such acts in his house, and whenever he learned it was so, he forbade them. Such prohibition is sometimes a trick. Besides, his ignorance of the law did not excuse him. We think a jury might infer the guilt of the defendant from the evidence. See McAlpin v. The State, 3 Ind. R. 567.— The State v. Staker, id. 570.

Per Curiam.

¶3The judgment is affirmed with costs.

/6/ind/30 · .json · Public domain