Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

83 Mo. App. 631

State v. Kuntz

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 13, 1900

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1900-03-13

— Hon. James Tilford, Neville, Judge. (1) The indictment does not charge defendant with using any device named in section 3810, Revised Statutes 1889 (the section under which the indictment is drawn). The court should be able, by an inspection of the indictment, to determine whether a crime is charged.

Akrtrmed · Decided 1900-03-13

BIGGS, J.

¶1The defendant was indicted and convicted for permitting a “slot-machine,” which was charged to be a gambling device, to be operated on premises owned or occupied by him. The defendant has appealed.

¶2It is urged that the indictment is insufficient in that it does not describe the slot-machine, and further that the defendant should have been indicted under section 3018. Revised Statutes 1899, as the evidence tended to show that he was a saloon keeper, and that the slot-machine was operated in his saloon building. These questions arose in the case of State v. Howell, 83 Mo. App, 198 upon substantially the same record that we have here, and were decided adversely to the defendant. Eor the reasons stated in our opinion in that case like rulings will be made in this. Therefore the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

All concur.
/83/moapp/631 · .json · Public domain