Hinkle v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 24 October 1836 |
| Citation | 34 Ky. 518 |
| Parties | Hinkle v. The Commonwealth. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY.
Mr. H. Marshall, Jr., for the plaintiff.
Atto. Gen. Morehead contra.
The plaintiff having been fined five hundred dollars, on conviction, upon an indictment charging him with having set up, and kept a gaming table, and induced others to bet at it--only two questions are presented on this writ of error, prosecuted by him, to reverse the judgment: First--whether the proof was sufficient. Second--whether offences, which may be distinct, being charged in the same count, the indictment is good?
Setting up a gaming table may be an entire offence; keeping a gaming table and inducing others to bet upon it, may also, constitute a distinct offence; for either, unconnected with the other, an indictment will lie. Yet when both are perpetrated by the same person at the same time, they constitute but one offence, for which one count is sufficient, and for which but one penalty can be inflicted.
We are of opinion that there is no error. First. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding, that the facts charged were true; and to justify the deduction also, that the offence charged had been committed since the date of a previous offence of a similar character, for which the plaintiff had been before convicted. Second. Although the setting up of a gaming table may alone be an indictable offence, the keeping of such table, and the inducing of any person to bet upon it, another, when each shall have been committed by different persons, or at different times; nevertheless, as they are co-operating acts, constituting altogether one offence, when committed by the same person, at the same time, an indictment for that combined act in violation of law, may properly charge the whole in one count; and but one punishment can be inflicted, as for one offence.
Wherefore, the judgment must be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobs v. State
... ... co-operating acts, and constitute but one offense, for which ... but one punishment can be inflicted. Hinkleicted. Hinkle v ... Commonwealth ... ...
-
State v. Lawson
... ... being in its nature and having been tried as a continuing ... one, there could be but one punishment (Hinkle v ... Commonwealth, 34 Ky. 518, 4 Dana 518), and any other ... prosecution of defendant for an offense committed by the same ... means at the ... ...
-
In re Walsh
...v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa. 54; In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274, 30 L.Ed. 658, 7 S.Ct. 556; Woodford v. State, 1 Ohio St. 427; Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 34 Ky. 518, 4 Dana 518; Commonwealth v. Eaton, 15 Pick. [Mass.] Devere v. State, 5 O. Ct. Court 509; State v. Egglesht, 41 Iowa 574.) In the last case ......
-
State v. Wheelock
...person, and at the same time, they are but one offense, and may be set forth in one count, and will authorize but one punishment. Hinkle v. Com., 34 Ky. 518, 4 Dana (Ky.) 518. "In Tennessee it has been held that a conviction for running a horse-race is a good defense to a prosecution for be......