State v. Melville
| Decision Date | 10 January 1877 |
| Parties | STATE v. JEROME B. MELVILLE. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Under a statute providing that " every person....who shall be guilty of dealing ‘ faro,’ or banking for others to deal ‘ faro,’ or acting as lookout, game-keeper, or assistant for the game of ‘ faro,’ or any other banking game where money or property is dependent on the result, shall be taken and held to be a common gambler," an indictment was found charging that one M., " on the 15th day of August, A. D 1875, at Providence, in said county, ‘ did deal " " faro," a certain banking game where money and other property was then and there dependent on the result; whereby and by force of the statute in such case made and provided the said M. was then and there taken and held to be a common gambler,’ against the form," & c., & c.: -
Held, that the offence was duly charged.
Held, further, that proof of a single offence was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty.
It is sufficient if an indictment so charges an act forbidden by statute as to exclude any assumption that the indictment may have been proved, and the accused still be innocent.
EXCEPTIONS to the Court of Common Pleas.
Ira O. Seamans, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff.
Francis W. Miner, for excepting defendant.
This indictment was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, and comes before us upon exceptions. The indictment charges that the defendant, " on the 15th day of August, A. D. 1875, at Providence, in said county, ‘ did deal " faro," a certain banking game where money and other property was then and there dependent on the result; whereby, and by force of the statute in such case made and provided, the said Jerome B. Melville was then and there taken and held to be a common gambler,’ against the form of the statute," & c. Testimony was introduced showing that the defendant on one occasion dealt a game of faro which was played for money. The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury " that at least three instances of gaming must be shown to constitute the offence of being a common gambler, as charged in the indictment." The court refused so to instruct the jury, but did instruct them that the proof of one dealing of faro was sufficient. The defendant excepted. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that there was no offence set forth, or sufficiently set forth, in the indictment. The court below overruled the motion and the defendant excepted.
We do not think the court below erred in refusing to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant.
The statute, Gen. Stat. R.I. cap. 234, § 5, declares that every person " who shall be guilty of dealing ‘ faro,’ or banking for others to deal ‘ faro,’ or acting as lookout, gamekeeper, or assistant for the game of ‘ faro,’ or any other banking game where money or property is dependent on the result, shall be taken and held to be a common gambler." The language is clear. Any person who is guilty of dealing " faro" is to be taken and held to be a common gambler. A person who deals " faro" once is guilty of dealing " faro," in the same way that a man who steals once is guilty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Yanez, 97-110-C
...(liquor merchant bound to know the intoxicating character of his wares and his illegal sale creates a common nuisance); State v. Melville, 11 R.I. 417 (1877) (dealing of faro brands one as a common gambler); State v. Smith, 10 R.I. 258 (1872) (sale of adulterated milk subject to fine of up ......
-
State v. Davis
...35 R. I. 285, 288, 86 Atl. 887; State v. Martin, 23 R. I. 143, 146, 49 Atl. 497; State v. Groves, 21 R. I. 252, 43 Atl. 181; State v. Melville, 11 R. I. 417. Even in offenses of this kind, indictments covering definite successive periods named have been declared to be permissible. Com. v. C......
-
State v. Martin
...law for practicing dentistry on different days or in particular cases,—as in gambling cases for dealing faro at different times (State v. Melville, 11 R. I. 417); or several instances might be offered as proof of one continuous offense. In cases for being a common gambler, or for keeping a ......
-
State v. Flanagan
...3, the charge in the indictment may be true, and yet the defendant not be guilty of a violation of the statute. It was stated in State v. Melville, 11 R. I. 417, that it was sufficient if an indictment so charged an act forbidden by statute as to exclude any assumption that the indictment m......