Morgan v. The State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1888 |
| Docket Number | 14,349 |
| Citation | 19 N.E. 154,117 Ind. 569 |
| Parties | Morgan et al. v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for a Rehearing Overruled Feb. 23, 1889.
From the Clark Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
P. H Jewett, A. G. Caruth and F. B. Burke, for appellants.
G. H Voigt, Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.
The appellants, Sylvester Morgan and Sarah Morgan, his wife, were indicted for a violation of one of the provisions of section 2079, R. S. 1881, in having, for a period of time covering several weeks of the latter part of the year 1886, rented a room in the city of Jeffersonville to be used and occupied for gaming.
A jury found the appellants guilty as charged, assessing a fine of one hundred dollars against Sylvester Morgan and of ten dollars against Sarah Morgan, and, over exceptions, a judgment was awarded accordingly.
The first question made here is that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence. It was shown by the evidence that the room referred to in the indictment was a part of a building owned by Mrs. Morgan and kept and used by her and her husband as a hotel; that, in July, 1886, the appellants leased the room in question to one Price, ostensibly to be used as a storage-room and a sleeping apartment; that before the close of that summer Sylvester Morgan was notified that gambling was going on in the room, to which he gave no attention; that, during the months of November and December, 1886, a faro bank was kept in the room, and that the place was regularly used as a gaming-house; that, during the months named, the room had the reputation of being a place kept and used for gaming purposes; that a considerable number of persons were in the habit of visiting the room, and that a man usually stood at the door who admitted only such persons as were regarded as desirable visitors. Other facts and circumstances were testified to which tended to show that the appellants had good reason to believe that gaming was suffered to be carried on in the room. Graeter v. State, 105 Ind. 271, 4 N.E. 461; Pierce v. State, 109 Ind. 535, 10 N.E. 302. We would not, therefore, be justified in holding that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence.
Questions are also made upon certain instructions given to the jury at the trial.
Section 1815, R. S. 1881, provides that "It shall be sufficient evidence that any building or other place was rented for the purpose of gaming, if such gaming was actually carried on, and the owner or lessor thereof knew or had good reason to believe that the lessee suffered any gaming therein, and such owner or lessor took no sufficient means to prevent or restrain the same."
The circuit court accordingly instructed the jury that if gaming was actually carried on in the room, and the appellants knew, or had good reason to believe, that their tenant suffered such gaming to be so carried on, and took no sufficient means to prevent or restrain the same, these facts constituted sufficient evidence that the room had been rented to be used for gaming.
Counsel contend that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial