State v. Ritchie
| Decision Date | 31 December 1836 |
| Citation | 19 N.C. 29 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. MOSES RITCHIE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
In an indictment under the act of 1830, ch. 10, against a white man, for playing cards with slaves, it is sufficient to charge, that the defendant ''unlawfully did play at a game of cards," without specifying the name of the particular game played at with the cards.
THE defendant was convicted, together with one Alexander Hill, at Surry, on the last Circuit, before Dick, J., upon the following bill of indictment:
"The jurors for the state upon their oath present, that Moses Ritchie and Alexander Hill, both late of said county, and both white men, on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, with force and arms, in said county, unlawfully did play at a game of cards with two slaves, viz.: John, the property of one Peter Clingman, and Juan; contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."
A motion in arrest of judgment was submitted by the counsel for the defendants; which being overruled, and judgment pronounced, the defendant, Ritchie, appealed.
DANIEL, Judge: The act of the general assembly, passed in the year 1830, ch. 10, enacts, "that it shall not be lawful for any white person, free negro, or mulatto, to play at any game of cards, dice, nine-pins, or any game of chance or hazard, whether for money, liquor, or any kind of property, or not, with any slave or slaves; and any white person, so offending, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, &c." The defendant, a white man, has been indicted under this act, and found guilty by the jury. He moved in arrest of judgment; which motion was overruled by the Court, and judgment rendered against him ; from which he has appealed to this court. There is no particular reason in arrest assigned. We have, examined the whole record, and do not discover any reason why the judgment should be arrested. The act prohibits the playing at any game of cards; the indictment charges, that the defendant "unlawfully did play at a game of cards, with two slaves, &c." It does not set forth the name of the game played on or with the cards; and we are of the opinion, that the name of the game played at by the parties, need not be particularly set forth in the indictment. The present indictment sufficiently describes the offence, to enable the defendant to see what he is charged with; and therefore properly to defend himself. It enables the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tisdale
...charge and have the benefit of an acquittal or conviction if accused a second time." See, also, State v. Blythe, 18 N.C. 199; State v. Ritchie, 19 N.C. 29; State Faucett, 20 N.C. 239, and, in the reports of other states, State v. Allen, 32 Iowa, 491; State v. Steedman, 8 Rich. (S. C.) 312; ......
-
Fletcher v. State
... ... counsel, is State v. Ferrell, 30 W.Va. 683, 5 S.E ... 155. The court said: "The indictment, omitting the ... caption, is in these words: "The grand jurors of the ... state of West Virginia, in and for the body of the county of ... Ritchie, and now attending such court, upon their oaths ... present that Patrick Ferrell, on the _____ day of June, 1887, ... in the said county, was a druggist, and as such druggist, at ... his drug store in the town of Pennsboro, in the county ... aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully sell ... ...
-
Gibson v. Windsor
... ... , that he had never, in fact, executed the bond; and upon this point much testimony was introduced on both sides, which it is unnecessary to state. The jury, under the charge of his Honor, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that the bond declared on was the act and deed of the ... ...