Hardy v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1842 |
| Citation | 7 Mo. 607 |
| Parties | HARDY v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CRIMINAL COURT.
MCPHERSON, for Appellant.
BENT, for Appellee.
The appellant, defendant in the criminal court, was indicted for permitting a gambling device, called a roulette, to be used in his booth for the purpose of gaming for money. The defendant, being found guilty, appealed to this court. The appellant assigns as reasons for reversing the judgment of the criminal court: 1st. That there was no venue proved on the trial. 2nd. That there is a variance between the indictment and the evidence introduced to support it. 3rd. That the court committed error in stating to the jury orally that the jury were judges of the law and the fact, when they requested the law book.
The evidence in the cause shows that at the fall races in 1839 the defendant was in a booth turning a roulette, at which other persons were betting; that money was won and lost at the table where the defendant was employed. There were several other roulettes in the booth, and it was not known who was the owner of the whole booth.
I believe it is nowhere stated in the record that this race track or that the booth was in St. Louis county, but as it is not stated that the record contains all the evidence given, we may fairly presume that it was proved that the booth and race track were in St. Louis county.
The defendant prayed the court to instruct the jury, First, that unless the defendant owned or rented the booth, or had possession of it at the time specified, they must acquit. Second, that the setting up or playing at the roulette table is a different offense from that charged in the indictment.
The court gave the following, in place of the first instruction asked: “That unless the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant owned or occupied the booth, or at the time had possessior or control of it, they must acquit.” The court refused the second instruction asked, and I hold it was very rightly refused. The court is not bound to give every idle instruction asked. Everybody, without the aid of law knowledge, understands that. The evidence in this cause very plainly shows that the defendant had sufficient possession of this booth to maintain and keep up the roulette; the machine appears to have been under his direction and management; he had sufficient possession of the ground to insure those disposed to bet, the right of entry and of tarrying. It is not very material what his title was to the soil on which the booth stood, or whether he was proprietor of the whole or of a part only. He might very well have been guilty of both offenses; and some future grand jury may perhaps indict him for the offense of which he seems to think himself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chaney
...out, it was held it was the duty of the judge of a criminal court 'to instruct the jury in all the law arising in the case.' Hardy v. State, 7 Mo. 607, 609; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55, 57. In the Matthews case, the court said: 'It was the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the l......
-
State v. Starr
...State, 7 Mo. 607 (1842), this court has uniformly held it to be the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on the law of the case. The Hardy case involved the question of the right of the to decide the law as well as the facts. On this point this court said: "It is the duty of the jud......
-
State v. Brinkley
...candid judgment seems to be just and proper." State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542, 5 S.W. 230; State v. Farrell, 6 S.W.2d 857, 320 Mo. 319; State v. Hardy, 7 Mo. 607. (10) Instruction given for the State is not incorrect in containing the definition of reasonable doubt. State v. Cook, 44 S.W.2d 90;......
-
People v. Bruner
...185;Commonwealth v. Rock 10 Gray (Mass.) 4;Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 173;Williams v. State, 32 Miss. 389, 66 Am. Dec. 615;Hardy v. State, 7 Mo. 607;State v. Hosmer, 85 Mo. 553;Parrish v. State, 14 Neb. 60, 15 N. W. 357;Pierce v. State, 13 N. H. 536;People v. Pine, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 566;Car......