Case ID: ind_6/html/0030-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Perkins, J. \n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Winehart v. The State.
    
      Thursday, December 14.
    Ignorance of the law will not excuse a man from punishment on a criminal accusation.
    APPEAL from the Putnam Circuit Court.
    
      J. Cowgill and D: R. Eckles, for the appellant.
    
      R. A. Riley, N B. Taylor, and J. Coburn, for the state.
   Perkins, J.

Indictment for keeping a gaming house. Conviction and fine in the Circuit Court.

The question is on the weight of evidence. It is proved, that the defendant kept a grocery store, in which he sold beer, cigars, &c.; and two witnesses testified that-they had often played cards in an adjoining room in the house, for cigars, beer, &c.; that the defendant did not know it was wrong to permit such acts in his house, and whenever he learned it was so, he forbade them. Such prohibition is sometimes a trick. Besides, his ignorance of the law did not excuse him. We think a jury might infer the guilt of the defendant from the evidence. See McAlpin v. The State, 3 Ind. R. 567.— The State v. Staker, id. 570.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.