Case Name: Harry Enderes v. State of Ohio
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1908-11-14
Citations: 21 Ohio C.C. Dec. 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harry Enderes v. State of Ohio.
Judges: Swing, Giffen and Smith, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 21
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
CRIMINAL LAW — VENUE.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
November 14, 1908.]
Swing, Giffen and Smith, JJ.
Harry Enderes v. State of Ohio.
Absence oe Averment and Prooe of Venue Insufficient to Sustain Conviction fob Criminal Offense.
An affidavit charging the offense of suffering a game of chance on the premises, in violation of Sec. 6933 Rev. Stat., “within four miles of the corporate limits” of Cincinnati and Hamilton county, in the absence of averment or proof that the offense was committed in Hamilton county and state of Ohio, is insufficient to sustain a conviction therefor.
Error to police court of Cincinnati.
Harry Enderes was convicted in the police court of the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton county, Ohio, on the charge of suffering a game of chance on the premises. The alleged offense was committed on the Island Queen, an Ohio river steamer, lying at “Coney Island,” a pleasure resort on the Ohio side of the river, near Cincinnati. The affidavit charges:
“H. T. Harrison, being first duly cautioned and sworn, deposes and saith that one Harry Enderes, on or about the twenty-ninth day of August, 1906, within four miles of the corporate limits of the city and county aforesaid, did unlawfully suffer a certain game of chance, the name of which is to the affiant unknown, to be played for gain, to wit, for money, to wit, for the sum of five cents, by means of a certain gaming device and machine, to wit, a ‘nickel slot machine,’ by one Louis Wien, in a certain erection, to wit, an apartment upon the main deck of the steamer Island Queen, the said apartment being then and there in the care of him, the said Harry Enderes.”
The court of common pleas affirmed the judgment of the police court on error.
M. C. Lykins, for plaintiff in error.
J. M. Thomas, for the state.

Opinion:
QIFFEN, J.
It is not charged in the affidavit that the offense was committed at the city of Cincinnati and county of Hamilton, but "within four miles of the corporate limits of the city and county aforesaid. ' ' Under this averment it may have been in the state of Kentucky. It is admitted in the record that Coney Island is within four miles of the city of Cincinnati, but there is no proof that it is within the county of Hamilton and state of Ohio.
Judgment reversed.
Swing and Smith, JJ., concur.