Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-10-21

THE STATE OF TENNESSEE IN ERROR cs WIN
Bless.
The defendant presented for betting upon shoot
ing match. which shot as charged within two hun
dred yards Of public road At the November term,
1867 the defendant moTed 10 Quash the prcsentment
which motion sustained TO which action Of the court
the District Attorney excepted and appealed IN
this court.
we have heretofore held, in Myers We. the State,
Sneoi IS, aud in Ycr 1884, that all the statutes upon
the subject Of gaming be taken together as one
Laws and therefore look the various provis.
ions Of the statute concerning gaming in order de-
\ termine the question raised in this
If the presentment is for the Oensc made by 7OI Of
the code there in sustaining the molten Of
the defendant TO quash the preentmen for that section
provides that any person shooting mark other
object for amusement within the bounds Of any
wthn two hundred yards Of any public road Of the first
and second class about the barn OF stock yard Of
another shall forfeit dollars each oonse to any
person suing therefor aud does not by its terms make
the act Of shooting under such circumstances an indie
table ocnse The forfeiture accrues against the party
offending. although the shooting mark other OBJ
ject was only for amusement II the shooting within
the bounds Of town. within two hundred yards Of
road Of the class named in the act II the oense
ndictabe under this secion sad the presontment had
charged that the shooting at mark other object
for amusement the presontment would have been quash
ed on motion, unless il bad charged that the shooting
was within zee yards Of public road Of the first or sc G.
ond class for the shooting within 200 yards Of read Of
that class is material ingredient in the oense. Sec
1896 Of the code provides that when the performance Of
any act is prohibited by statute and penalty for the
violation of such statute s imposed, the doing OF such
acts Is a misdemeanor. BY section 1890 which is
copy Of the 4th section Of the act Of 1872 is provided
that all violations Of the criminal laws may be prosecu
ted by indictment pTeseniment Of grand jury bis
fourth section OF the act Of 1862 construed in ST,
VS.. Maze, Hum Is wherein Il held that the act
passed simply 10 make presentable whatsoever was
indctabe, and rice versa, and make INSIDE
meauors Sec 4S7O, article Of tho code provides that
At ay person play at any game Of hazard address for
money or other valuable thing be is guilty Of misie
meanor; bat by section 1870 shooting matches are de-
cared not to be within the prohibition Of this article
New the Presentmen in this charges that the de-
PENDANT ana bet gamble and put in hazard upon
tain shooting match, which was then and there shot,
Within two hundred yards Of public road money bank
notes and property Of the value Of City cents, This
HOua DC good presentment FOR gaming under section
4eiu, betting on shooting match is indioHble at an
since our act oil 1917 Incorporated in $50 Of the code
Inc onense consists 10 making bet or wager for
money OF other valuable thing aud in relation 10 this
Oense under section aS7O, the place where ne oense
committed, except tbs laying Of the wanna in the
county Of Williamson, to show the jurisdiction of the
court, was not material and the words 200 wards Of
public road" might be rejected as a surplusare II sr
tanly could not affect the validity Of the preseptent
But the defendant although be made bet or wager
for money other valuable thing, upon a Shooting 1
match, guilty Of any ohense against the law upless he
bet made upon match which was contested or sho
within zoe yards Of public road Of the first or od
CLASSY In the OF Meyers vs. the state "a $500
s8 the charge N the indictment that the defendant
did bet wager and hazard watch OF the value Of m
dollars upon certain contest Of skill and hazard COM
monty called shooting which was then and there con
tc ted had and shot mark than 200 wards Of
certain public road Of the second class The error as
sigued in that that the indictment charged no
oense. This court held IN that that the shooting
prohibited by the act Of 1871 since enacted in the Code
In sec LODI is not within the exemption Of the act Of
1917. chap. 81, z, 20 wit: The exemption that
nothing il said Of 1917 should be construed 90 az 10
prevent shooting marohes. The act Of 1921 only gave
penalty and that construed without reference to other
acts upon the same subject il clear that the oaense
thereby created not indieabe. The question
whether the oense created by the act Of 1921 lsec T.
SOI Of the code when taken in connection with preyi
BUS enactments was iEdietable not was expressly
eryed This court held however in that case that the
hoctng contemplated by the act Of 1871 was anlaTfn
nd being So TO wager or bet upon such unlawful act
as an ndctable uense under the general provisions Of
ur satntary Law against gaming The court aiso held