Case ID: miss_35/html/0222-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. Gamble v. The State of Mississippi.
    Gaming : betting on election oe president and vice-president. — The election of President and Vice-President of the United States, is entirely distinct from the election of electors: and hence, an indictment charging the defendant ■with betting on the result of the election in a particular State for electors, will not be sustained by proof that a bet was made on the result of the election in that State for President.
    ERROR to the Circuit Court of Warren county. Hon. J. S. Yerger, judge.
    
      Marshall and Miller, for plaintiff in error.
    
      T. J. Wharton, attorney-general, for the State.
   Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a conviction, in the Circuit Court of Warren, under the statute against gaming. A motion was made for a new trial, upon the ground, amongst others, that the verdict was against the evidence. The motion was overruled. The judgment on the motion is assigned for error, and presents the only question necessary to be noticed.

The indictment charged, that the plaintiff in error bet money on the result of an election to be held on the 4th day of November, 1856, for eight electors, in the State of Maryland, to vote for President and "Vice-President of the United States.

The only witness introduced on the trial testified, that in 1856, he bet with the defendant one hundred dollars on the result of the election in Maryland in- 1856, between Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Fillmore, for President of the United States ; that he bet the State would vote for Mr. Fillmore, and defendant bet it would vote for Mr. Buchanan; and that nothing was said, nor any bet made, about the election of electors.

The voting for, or election of President and Yice-President, is entirely distinct from the election .of the electors. They are held at different times and different places, which are designated by law. It does not, therefore, admit of question, that the charge in the indictment was not sustained by the evidence : consequently, that the verdict should have been set aside, and a new trial awarded, which we order to be done.