State v. Kyle

• Decision Date: 31 January 1847
• Parties: STATE v. KYLE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 Mo. 389

STATE

v.KYLE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1847.

ERROR TO CHARITON CIRCUIT COURT.

STRINGFELLOW, Attorney-General, and J. V. TURNER, for State. 1st. The indictment need not allege where the game was played. The defendant was indicted not for the playing but for betting, and if the betting was done in the county in which the indictment was found, it is immaterial where the game was played; if it were necessary to allege that the playing as well as the betting took place in the county in which the indictment was found the statute could be evaded by placing the players on one side of a county-line and the betters on the other; in that case the offenders would be indictable in neither county. It is clear that gaming under such circumstances would be a violation of the law, and that the betters should be indicted in the county in which the bet was made--the offense not being committed within five hundred yards of the county-line. 2nd. The place of the playing is alleged in the indictment. It is alleged that the defendant in the county of Chariton bet, &c, on a gaming device then and there adapted, &c., for the purpose of playing a game of chance, &c., which is equivalent to alleging that the device was then and there used for that purpose, or that the game bet upon was then and there played. 3rd. The only use of a venue in an indictment is to show that the indictment was found by a grand jury having cognizance of the offense, and it is therefore unnecessary to lay a venue to any fact that it is not necessary to prove occurred within the county.

HALL, for Defendant.

MCBRIDE, J.

At the October term, 1845, of the Chariton Circuit Court, S. B. Kyle was indicted for gaming. The court on the motion of the defendant, quashed the indictment, and the State thereupon prosecuted her writ of error to this court, and now assigns for error the quashing of the indictment. The indictment charges that the defendant “did on, &c., at the county aforesaid, bet property, to-wit: &c., upon a certain gaming device, then and there adapted, devised and designed for the purpose of playing a game of chance for money and property; that is to say upon a gaming device commonly called cards, against the peace,” &c. The reason on which the Circuit Court was asked to quash the indictment as set forth in the motion is, that it is not alleged where the gambling device was played.

The indictment charges the defendant with betting, which is an offense under our statute, as...