Case ID: dc_5/html/0390-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "(Cranch, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

United States v. George Milburn.
    An indictment for keeping a “ gaming-table,” is insufficient; it should charge the keeping of a common gaming-table. An indictment for keeping a faro-bank is also bad; it should be a common faro-bank; or “ a faro-bank, the same being a common gaming-table.”
    Indictment containing two counts; 1st, That the defendant kept “ a gaming-table, against the form of the statute,” &e.
    2d. That he kept “ a faro-bank against the form of the statute,” &c.
    
      Mr. W. L. Brent,
    
    for Ihe defendant, demurred to the whole indictment, because neither count charges the keeping of a common gaming-table, or a common faro-bank, or a faro-bank, the same being a common gaming-table, and cited Cooly’s case (4 Cranch, C. C. 707,) and Ringgold’s case, {ante, 378.)
    
      Mr. Key, contrá,
    
    contended that it was sufficient to charge the offence in the words of the statute, and cited 1 Chitty, 281. The words of the twelfth section of the Penitentiary Act are, “ That, every person duly convicted of keeping a faro-bank or gaming-table shall be sentenced to suffer imprisonment and labor, for a period not less than one year, nor more than five years.”
   But the Court

(Cranch, C. J.,

contrá, as to the second count,) stopped Mr. Brent in reply, and quashed the indictment. See Arch. Crirri. Pleading, 24.