Case ID: tenn_23/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Green, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony vs. The State.
    1. An indictment or presentment for gaming must lay some daj' as the day on which the offence charged was committed, and the day so stated must be within the time within which the law authorized a prosecution to be commenced.
    2. A charge in an indictment for gaming, that the defendant bet “valuable things,” is too vague. It must set forth and describe the valuable thing bet.
    At the October term, 1840, of the Circuit Court of Dyer county, the grand jury presented N. W- Anthony for the offence of gaming. The presentment charged, that Anthony, on “the first day of September, in the year one thousand and forty, with force and arms, in the county of Dyer, did then and there play, wager, hazard and bet, at a game of cards played with cards, and did then and there bet, wager and hazard money, bank notes, change tickets, and other valuable things, upon the result of said game of cards” &c.
    The defendant moved to quash the presentment. The motion was overruled. The defendant thereupon pleaded in abatement, that the presentment was not signed by the grand jury. The attorney for the State took issue on this plea and the case was submitted to a jury at the October term, 1841: Harris, Judge, presiding.
    It appeared by the testimony of a grand juror, that four of the grand jury could not write their names, and that the witness, in their presence and at their request, signed their names to the presentment. The court charged the jury, that if the signing was done in the presence and at the request of those who could not write, it was a good signing. The jury returned a verdict that “the grand jury did sign the presentment,” and the defendant was ordered to answer over. He pleaded not guilty. In an issue on this plea, it appeared in evidence that the defendant played at a game of cards in Dyer county, and bet thereupon “cash notes,” within the six months next preceding the finding of the presentment, and that the “cash notes” were valuable.
    The court charged the jury, that if the defendant played and bet on a game of cards for valuable cash notes, within the county of Dyer, and within six months next preceding the finding of the presentment, he was guilty.
    The jury found him guilty; and a motion for a new trial having been made and overruled, he moved in arrest of judgment. This motion was also overruled, judgment was rendered, and the defendant was fined.
    
      R. P. Raines, for the plaintiff in error.
    The court should have granted a new trial. There was no legal evidence to sustain the presentment. Cash notes were not bank notes, change tickets, nor were they money, and nothing could be given in evidence under the words “valuable things.”
    2. The judgment should have been arrested, because the face of the presentment shows that the gaming charged was not within six months of the time of finding.
    
      
      Attorney General, for the State.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a presentment for gaming. The presentment was made at the October term of the Dyer Circuit Court, 1840; and charges the gaming to have taken place on the 1st day of September, one thousand and forty. The act of 1824, ch. 5, sec. 4, limits prosecutions for gaming to the period of six months after the offence may have been committed. This presentment alledges the offence here charged, to have been committed more than six months before the prosecution commenced. It follows, that it was not authorized by law, and the defendant should not have been held to answer it. The date of the gaming was doubtless inserted by mistake; but that cannot change the question. The indictment must lay some day, and the day so stated must be a period within which the law authorizes a prosecution to be commenced.

2d. In addition to the above, there is another ground of error in this record. The presentment alledges, that the parties bet “money, bank notes, change tickets, and other valuable things.” The evidence is, they bet “cash notes.” This evidence is plainly inadmissible to support the allegation as to the wager of “money, bank notes, or change tickets,” for the “cash notes” constitute neither of these. Nor would it be admitted, to support the charge, that “other valuable things” were bet. This charge is too vague; for although these words are used in the statute, so as to make it criminal to gamble for any “valuable thing,” the “valuable thing” so bet must be set forth and described in the indictment or presentment.

On both grounds there is error; but as upon this presentment the party ought not to have been held to answer, the judgment must be arrested.