Case ID: f-cas_26/html/0554-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 15,450.
    UNITED STATES v. ISMENARD et al.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 150.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Dec. Term, 1803.
    INuisanoes—Gaming Houses—Joint Indictment.
    1. A public gaming-house is a public nuisance at common law.
    [Followed in U. S. v. Mickle, Case No. 15,763. • Cited in U. S. v. Holly, Id. 15,381; U. S. v. Milburn, Id. 15,767.]
    [Cited in People v. Sponsler, 1 Dak. 289, 46 N. W. 460.]
    2. Upon a joint indictment the judgment must be several.
    [Cited in U. S. v. Holly, Case No. 15,381.]
    Indictment [against John F. Ismenard, John Ismenard, and Robert’ Smith] for keeping a public gaming-house. 1st count, common nuisance; 2d, under the act of assembly of Maryland, 1797, c. 110, prohibiting faro-tables, and other gambling devices, to be kept by tavern-keepers and retailers of wine and spirits.
    Mr. Mason, for the District,
    cited 1 Hawk. P. C. 360, 362, that a public gaming-house is a common nuisance.
    E. B. Caldwell and P. B. Key,
    contended that playing at cards or dice is not malum in se; nor in itself an offence at common law. 11 Coke, 87b. And that a public gaming-house is no offence at common law unless it become disorderly, so as to disturb the neighbors. 4 Bl. Commi 167, 171.
    But THE COURT (nem. con.) instructed the jury that a public gaming-house is a common nuisance. The verdict having been rendered against the defendants upon the first count only, and the indictment being joint, it became a question whether the judgment should be joint or several; and the following authorities were cited; Jones v. Com., 1 Call, 555; Godfrey’s Case, 11 Coke, 42; 2 Hawk. P. C. bk. 2, p. 633. c. 4S, §§ 10, 17, 18; Esp. N. P. 420 ; 2 Hawk. P. C. p. 342, c. 25, § 89.
    
      
       [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
    
   THE COURT

imposed the fines severally: namely, on J. F. Ismenard, $133%. on John Ismenard, $50, on Robert Smith, $25; and required each of them to give security in five hundred dollars for his good behavior for one year.