Morgan v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1888 |
| Citation | 117 Ind. 569,19 N.E. 154 |
| Parties | Morgan et ux. v. State. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Clark county; Charles P. Ferguson, Judge.
Indictment against Sylvester Morgan and Sarah Morgan, his wife, for renting premises for unlawful gaming. Defendants were convicted, and appeal.Patrick H. Jewett, Frank B. Burk, and Asher G. Carruth, for appellants. The Attorney General and Geo. H. Vogt, 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, Rev. St. 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 $100 against Sylvester Morgan, and of $10 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 an 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 gaming 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. Rep. 461; Pierce v. State, 109 Ind. 535, 10 N. E. Rep. 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, Rev. St. 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 that the appellants knew, or had good reason to believe, that their tenant suffered such...
To continue reading
Request your trial