Case ID: va_47/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. Vandine.
    1849. December Term
    
    What is not a public place in contemplation of the act to suppress gaming.
    At the September term 1848, of the. Circuit court of Jackson county, John S. Vandine was indicted for playing at a game of cards at a public place in said county. On the trial of the cause, the jury found a special verdict, in substance as follows: The county of Jackson 
      owned, a tract of land of about 80 acres, for the purpose of maintaining the poor of the county upon it. This land was leased to William Humphreys. In the latter part of August 1848, the land then being in the possession and under the control of Humphreys, a shooting match was had on this land, at which all persons who chose to attend, might have done so. About twenty persons were present; and whilst the shooting was going on, the defendant, with three others, left the shooting party, and went up a ravine about two hundred yards from the place of shooting, to a place thickly surrounded with brush and briers; and then and there played at a game of eards called “bluff.” They could not be seen from the place of the shooting match, in consequence of the brush and briers, and also because the bank of the ravine was interposed. There were about ten persons during the day, engaged in the playing ; and in that time, a few persons passed between the two places. It did not appear that Humphreys had authorized these parties to play at that place, or that any persons were excluded who chose to go there. And the place at which the playing occurred had not been resorted to for the purpose of gaming or for any other purpose, before that time. If upon the facts, the Court was of opinion that the place at which the playing occurred, was a public place within the meaning of the law to suppress gaming, the jury found the defendant guilty ; but if it was not a public place within the meaning of the statute, then they found for the defendant.
    The Court deeming the question of law arising on the special verdict new and difficult, with the consent of the defendant, adjourned to this Court the question: “ What judgment ought to be pronounced on the said special verdict ?”
   By the Court.

The Court is of opinion that judgment ought to be entered for the defendant.