State v. Russell
| Decision Date | 17 March 1885 |
| Citation | 17 Mo.App. 16 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. BARNEY RUSSELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, NOONAN, J.
Reversed and the defendant discharged.
J. W. COLLINS, for the appellant.
J. R. CLAIBORNE, for the respondent.
The defendant was tried on a criminal information for vending a lottery ticket. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $250.00.
The information charges the offense by stating that the defendant did, on a day named, “wrongfully and unlawfully sell and expose to sale, and caused to be sold and exposed to sale, and did keep on hand for the purpose of sale, and did then and on said other days and times there assist in the sale and exposure to sale of certain lottery tickets, and a certain share and shares in certain lottery tickets in a certain lottery device in the nature of a lottery, known as the Horse Race Lottery, at and for a certain price and charge, to wit: ten cents each, in which, and whereby certain property of great value, to wit: five dollars, was therein and thereby to be disposed of by lot and chance.”
The following was all the evidence in the case:
“John Dent testified as follows: I know the defendant, Barney Russell. I was at his office on Seventh and Morgan streets, in the city of St. Louis, state of Missouri, on the 8th of October, 1884. I went there to play policy and the defendant gave me a piece of paper with three numbers on it. I paid fifteen cents for it. I told Russell that I wanted to make a play. I wrote the numbers on the paper myself, and the numbers I wrote are 14, 32, 69. Russell put on the class number 17 himself on the paper. The defendant had two books in his office and put the numbers in on one of them. I bought the ticket at ten o'clock and was to get returns from drawings at five o'clock. Witness is here shown a paper with the numbers 14, 32, 69 and 17 on it, and he said that is the ticket I got of defendant. I did not know of any horse race or horses of these numbers. This happened in the city of St. Louis, state of Missouri. My ticket did not win anything.
On cross examination, said witness, John Dent, testified as follows: I only told defendant I wanted to make a play, and he did not make any statement to me except that I would get returns at five o'clock. I don't know whether the paper introduced in evidence with the numbers on it is a lottery ticket, a policy ticket, or a ticket on a horse race. The defendant did not tell me what it was; he did not tell me whether it was a horse race, a policy, or a lottery ticket. I don't know whether it is a ticket on a horse race or not. I don't know what the ticket was on. Badger and Flynn gave me money to buy tickets with.
George W. Badger, being sworn on the part of the state, testified as follows: I am a police officer and arrested the defendant at Seventh and Morgan streets, in this city,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Solon
...played with cards, we will not take judicial knowledge that poker is a game of chance. [In re Murphy, 128 Cal. 29, 60 P. 465; State v. Russell, 17 Mo.App. 16.] follows then, that the demurrer to the evidence on the second count ought to have been sustained, since to be clear upon the point,......
-
State v. Solon
...played with cards, we will not take judicial knowledge that poker is a game of chance. In re Murphy, 128 Cal. 29, 60 Pac. 465; State v. Russell, 17 Mo. App. 16. It follows, then, that the demurrer to the evidence on the second count ought to been sustained, since, to be clear upon the point......
-
City of Toledo v. Johnson
...newspapers of playing policy, but I am glad to say that I do not know what the expression means,' and held it must be proven. State v. Russell, 17 Mo.App. 16. See the same effect, State v. Sellner, 17 Mo.App. 39. In Ohio 'policy' and 'lottery,' 'bucketshops' and 'margins' appear in the stat......
-
State v. Bruner
...mentioned, and of the figures written on it.” This is substantially the same sort of testimony that was given for the state in State v. Russell (17 Mo.App. 16), and State v. Sellner (17 Mo.App. 39), decided by this court at the present term. We held in those cases that there was a total fai......