Kneffer v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 18 May 1893
• Citation: 94 Ky. 359,22 S.W. 446
• Parties: KNEFFER et al. v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

22 S.W. 446

94 Ky. 359

KNEFFER et al. v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 18, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Fayette county.

To be officially reported.

G. W Kneffer and another were convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and appeal. Affirmed.

H Marshall Buford, for appellants.

Wm. J Hendrick and Reid Rogers, for the Commonwealth.

LEWIS J.

Appellants were convicted of the offense of keeping a disorderly house charged in the indictment to have been committed by them in occupying and controlling under the firm name of G. W. Kneffer & Co. a house in the city of Lexington where they unlawfully permitted divers persons to habitually assemble, and habitually engage in betting, winning, and losing money and property on the prospective rise and fall in stocks, bonds, grain, and other produce, to the common nuisance and annoyance of all citizens of the commonwealth of Kentucky, and especially those living in the neighborhood of said house and passing same. An actual disturbance of the public peace is not indispensable to constitute the offense of keeping a disorderly house, but it is enough that acts be there done contrary to law, and subversive of public morals, health, or safety; and, consequently, it has been held by this court that a common gaming house is, in legal contemplation, a disorderly house. Cheek v. Com., 79 Ky. 359.

The first question, then, is whether the house of appellants kept and used for the purpose and in the manner described in the indictment, is a common gaming house. The purpose for which the house was kept and persons assembled there was, as stated in the indictment, simply to bet or wager money or property on the prospective rise and fall of stocks, bonds, grain, and other produce. There is no suggestion in the indictment that the business of buying and selling, accompanied with delivery of any of the articles mentioned was carried on there. Consequently, as said in Smith v. Telegraph Co., 84 Ky. 664, 2 S.W. 483, in regard to a similar establishment: "A mere statement of the character of business done by appellant shows it to be a species of gambling as well defined and as reprehensible as that of keeping a faro bank, or a dice machine, and is therefore illegal, and contrary to public policy." In that case, upon the ground "appellant was engaged in a gambling enterprise contrary to law, good morals, and public policy," the telegraph company was...