State v. Ames
| Decision Date | 31 July 1847 |
| Citation | 10 Mo. 743 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI v. AMES. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM ST. CHARLES CIRCUIT COURT.
STRINGFELLOW, Attorney-General, for The State.
CAMPBELL, for Appellee.
Benjamin Ames was indicted by the grand jury of St. Louis county, and obtained a change of venue to St. Charles county, where, on his motion, the indictment was quashed, and the State brought the case to this court by appeal. The indictment is in the following words, to-wit:
“COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, SS:
The grand-jurors for the State of Missouri, within and for the body of the county of St. Louis, upon their oaths, present, that Benjamin Ames, late of the county aforesaid, laborer, on the first day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, at the county aforesaid, a certain gambling device, commonly called a faro-bank, adapted, devised and designed for the purpose of playing games of chance for money, unlawfully did keep; and at and upon and by means of the said gambling device, on the said day and year aforesaid, and on divers other days and times, between the day of the taking of this inquisition, there unlawfully and willfully did induce and permit divers idle and evil-disposed persons to play at games of chance for money, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State. The second count charges the playing to have been for money and property.
The motion of the defendant to quash the indictment sets out the following reasons: 1. There is no venue stated in the indictment. 2. The venue is not properly stated. 3. Indictment does not state in what county it was found. 4. Indictment is otherwise defective, illegal, and insufficient. 5. All the counts in the indictment contain two distinct charges of offense.
Two objections to the indictment have been relied upon in this court to sustain the judgment of the Circuit Court. The first is the insufficiency of the venue. This objection is said to be sustained by the decision of this court in the case of the State v. Cook, 1 Mo. R. 548. Taking the statement of that case, made by the Judge who delivered the opinion, and the indictment against Cook differed materially from the one now under investigation. The only place where the county was set out was in the margin of the indictment, and the offense was charged to have been committed “at the county aforesaid.” And even in that case, where the indictment was so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The State ex rel. Walbridge v. Valliant
- State v. Valliant
-
State v. Spano
...one will be a bar to a prosecution for the others. This has been the rule in criminal pleading in this jurisdiction, beginning with State v. Ames, 10 Mo. 743. It finds its definite application in a liquor case in State v. Murphy, 47 Mo. 274, in which it is ruled that: "Where a statute in on......
-
State v. Brown
...Mo. 114; State v. Ellis, 4 Mo. 474; Eubanks v. The State, 5 Mo. 450; The State v. Mitchell, 6 Mo. 147; State v. Bates, 10 Mo. 166; State v. Ames, 10 Mo. 743; State Fletcher, 18 Mo. 425; State v. Herryford, 19 Mo. 377; State v. Fulton, 19 Mo. 680; State v. Scaggs, 33 Mo. 92; The State v. Dys......