State v. Rouelle

• Citation: 119 S.W. 55,137 Mo. App. 620
• Parties: STATE v. ROUELLE.
• Decision Date: 11 May 1909
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

119 S.W. 55

137 Mo. App. 620

STATE v. ROUELLE.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 11, 1909.

1. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1032)—APPEAL AND ERROR — OBJECTIONS NOT MADE BELOW — SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION.

An objection to the information not made below cannot be noticed on appeal.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1178)—APPEAL—FAILURE TO ARGUE POINTS IN BRIEF.

An objection to the information not argued in appellant's brief cannot be noticed on appeal.

3. GAMING (§ 74)—UNLAWFULLY KEEPING POOL TABLE—ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE.

Rev. St. 1899, § 3018 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1729), providing that it shall be unlawful for a dramshop keeper to set up, keep, or use about the premises any pool table, or any other device for gaming, makes it an offense to set up, keep, or use, or permit to be kept or used, a pool table, irrespective of whether it was used for gaming purposes.

4. GAMING (§ 90) — UNLAWFULLY KEEPING POOL TABLE—SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION.

An information under Rev. St. 1899, § 3018 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1729), charged that defendant, "being then and there a licensed dramshop keeper in the city of St. L., did then and there wrongfully and unlawfully set up, keep, use, and permit to be kept and used, in and about the premises of his said dramshop, located at No. 7801 S. Broadway, therewith, one pool table, same being then and there a device for gaming and designed for the purpose of playing a game of skill contrary to the form of the statute," etc. Held that, while not as technically accurate as good pleading might require, it charged the offense with sufficient particularity to advise defendant with what he was charged, and was therefore sufficient.

5. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 881) — UNLAWFULLY KEEPING POOL TABLE—RESPONSIVENESS OF VERDICT TO CHARGE.

Rev. St. 1899, § 3018 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1729), aims at preventing a pool table to be set up, used, or kept by a dramshop keeper himself, or permitting any one else to do so, in connection with his dramshop; and hence a verdict under an information charging the offense as described in the statute finding defendant guilty of "permitting a pool table on premises as charged" in the information was responsive thereto.

6. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION (§ 109) — SUFFICIENCY IN MISDEMEANOR CASES.

In determining the sufficiency of informations for misdemeanors under statutes designed to promote and preserve public morals, good order, and decency, the matter for ascertainment is whether the information substantially charges an offense aimed at by the statute with sufficient particularity to apprise defendant of the act with which he is charged, and to serve as a bar to a further prosecution of the same offense; but unnecessary technicalities or refinements of reasoning will not be indulged.

7. GAMING (§ 98)—UNLAWFULLY KEEPING POOL TABLE—SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Evidence held to warrant a conviction for keeping a pool table in connection with a dramshop, in violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 3018 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1729).

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge.

Charles H. Rouelle was convicted of unlawfully keeping a pool table, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant in this case was proceeded against by information duly filed in the St. Louis court of criminal correction, in which information it is charged that defendant, "being then and there a licensed dramshop keeper in the city of St. Louis, did then and there wrongfully and unlawfully set up, keep, use, and permit to be kept and used in and about the premises of his said dramshop, located at No. 7801 S. Broadway therewith one pool table, same being then and there a device for gaming and designed for the purpose of playing a game of skill, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state." The information was duly verified. On a trial before the court and jury the defendant was convicted; the jury returning a verdict as follows: "We the jury in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant guilty of permitting a pool table on premises as charged in the information, and assess his punishment at...