Anthony v. State
| Decision Date | 30 April 1843 |
| Citation | 23 Tenn. 83 |
| Parties | ANTHONY v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
At the October term, 1840, of the circuit court of Dyer county, the grand jury presented N. W. Anthony for the offence of gaming. The presentment charged that Anthony, on “the first day of September, in the year one thousand and forty, with force and arms, in the county of Dyer, did then and there play, wager, hazard, and bet at the game of cards played with cards, and did then and there bet, wager, and hazard money, bank notes, change tickets, and other valuable things upon the result of said game of cards” etc.
The defendant moved to quash the presentment. The motion was overruled. The defendant thereupon pleaded in abatement that the presentment was not signed by the grand jury. The attorney for the State took issue on this plea, and the case was submitted to a jury at the October term, 1841, Harris, judge, presiding.
It appeared by the testimony of a grand juror that four of the grand jury could not write their names, and that the witness, in their presence and at their request, signed their names to the presentment. The court charged the jury that if the signing was done in the presence and at the request of those who could not write, it was a good signing. The jury returned a verdict that “the grand jury did sign the presentment,” and the defendant was ordered to answer over. He pleaded not guilty. In an issue on this plea it appeared in evidence that the defendant played at a game of cards in Dyer county, and bet thereupon “cash notes,” within the six months next preceding the finding of the presentment, and that the “cash notes” were valuable.
The court charged the jury that if the defendant played and bet on a game of cards for valuable cash notes, within the county of Dyer, and within six months next preceding the finding of the presentment, he was guilty.
The jury found him guilty; and a motion for a new trial having been made and overruled, he moved in arrest of judgment. This motion was also overruled, judgment was rendered, and the defendant was fined.
R. P. Raines, for the plaintiff in error. The court should have granted a new trial. There was no legal evidence to sustain the presentment. Cash notes were not bank notes, change tickets, nor were they money, and nothing could be given in evidence under the words “valuable things.”
2. The judgment should have been arrested, because the face of the presentment shows that the gaming charged was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tobin
...v. Walsh, 43 Minn. 444, 45 N.W. 721; Lewis' Suth. Stat. Const. 816. The information is indefinite, People v. Carroll, 22 P. 129, Anthony v. State, 23 Tenn. 83; exhibits unlawfully seized were improperly received in evidence; the court erred in refusing defendant's requested instruction for ......
-
State v. Wells
... ... that defendant conducted the game for representatives of ... value, without alleging that the representatives of value ... were the subject of gambling, or compensation for services ... (People v. Carroll, 22 P. 129.); it fails to ... describe the valuable things (Anthony v. State, 23 ... Tenn. 83.); the court erred in permitting the admission of ... evidence relating to games at occasions other than as charged ... or described by the prosecuting witness (Fields v ... Territory, 1 Wyo. 78.); the court erred in receiving ... evidence of offenses on dates ... ...
-
Feltz v. Clark
... ... 80]shows, also, that the petitioner was a nephew of the deceased, William Feltz, and his next of kin resident in the State.A. W. O. Totten, for petitioner. It does not appear in the order appointing Clark administrator that the court had jurisdiction or power to make the ... ...