Wickard v. State
| Citation | 109 Ala. 45,19 So. 491 |
| Parties | WICKARD v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 06 February 1896 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from circuit court, Limestone county; Thomas R. Roulhac Judge.
Sam Wickard was convicted of playing at a game of cards or dice and betting money at such game, and appeals. Reversed.
The indictment is as follows: "The grand jury of said county charged that, before the finding of this indictment, that a game was played at cards or dice, and that Sam Wickard played at said game with cards or dice, or some device or substitute for cards or dice, at a tavern, inn, storehouse for retailing spirituous liquors, or house or place where spirituous liquors were at the time sold, retailed, or given away, or in a public house, highway, or some other public place, or at an outhouse where people resort, and did bet money at said game," etc. Defendant demurred to the indictment because of duplicity, in that it charged in the same count several distinct offenses, viz. that of playing with cards or dice and that of betting at cards or dice, at the several places specified in the statute. The demurrer was overruled. Defendant challenged for cause nine of the jurors with whom he was confronted, on the following ground: That each of said jurors was on the jury which tried Robert Oliver, at the same term of the court, for playing and betting at a game of cards or dice at the residence of Neal Burns, at which it is alleged that the defendant played and bet, and that said jurors had, in rendering their verdict, passed upon the material ingredients of the facts against the defendant in this case. The court refused to allow the challenge. The first witness for the state testified that he saw defendant Robert Oliver, Neal Burns, and others, playing cards and betting money at Neal Burns' house, in Limestone county in December, 1891, within 12 months before the finding of the indictment. He further testified that he had seen defendant play and bet at dice at another time at Wilson Whitlock's, in Limestone county, in December, 1891. The defendant objected to the latter testimony, and moved the court to exclude the same, on the ground that the state had elected to prosecute for the offense of playing and betting at cards at Neal Burns' house. The court overruled such motion and objection, and defendant excepted. There were other similar exceptions reserved to the introduction of the evidence of other witnesses tending to show that the defendant had played at cards or dice at other times and places than at Neal Burns' house, as testified to by the first witness. There were several witnesses for the state who testified that they had seen defendant and others play cards and dice,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. State
...Ingram v. State, 39 Ala. 247; Moore v. State, 10 Ala.App. 179; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Cochran v. State, 30 Ala. 542; Wickard v. State, 109 Ala. 45; Dennison State, 17 Ala.App. 674; State v. Crowley, 13 Ala. 172; Johnson v. State, 95 So. 583; Baygent v. State, 110 So. 114; McLin......
-
Leith v. State
... ... should be excluded, notwithstanding these facts did not give ... a special statutory ground of challenging. 'The ... impartiality of the jury box, the purity of the ... administration of justice, would require it.' Smith ... v. State, 55 Ala. 1; Wickard v. State, 109 Ala ... 45, 19 So. 491; Carr v. State , 104 Ala. 4, 16 So ... In ... Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. 405, the trial ... was for murder, and it was held that the court was ... authorized, for good and sufficient reason stated, to excuse ... a juror who had ... ...
-
State v. Bickford
...65 P. 323; People v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112, 1 Am. Crim. Rep. 660; Richardson v. State, 63 Ind. 192, 3 Am. Crim. Rep. 302; Wickard v. State, 109 Ala. 45, 19 So. 491; Scruggs v. State, 111 Ala. 60, 20 So. 642; v. People, 105 Ill. 452; State v. Bates, 10 Conn. 372; Mitchell v. People, 24 Colo. 5......
-
Lane v. State
...I'll give you an exception.' A mere objection or exception such as the foregoing fails to raise a reviewable question. Wickard v. State, 109 Ala. 45, 19 So. 491, points out that a challenge for cause without loss of strikes is due to be sustained on proof that a juror has tried another invo......