Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Crump, &c.; Same vs. Erenberg & Bowman; Same vs. Jack & Warner; Same vs. Prewitt & Servant; Same vs. Whitcher; Same vs. Harris, No. 1; Same vs. Same, No. 2; Same vs. Talbot; Same vs. Northcraft & Thurman
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1857-12-08
Citations: 18 B. Mon 469
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Crump, &c. Same vs. Erenberg & Bowman. Same vs. Jack & Warner. Same vs. Prewitt & Servant. Same vs. Whitcher. Same vs. Harris, No. 1. Same vs. Same, No. 2. Same vs. Talbot. Same vs. Northcraft & Thurman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 469–472

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Crump, &c. Same vs. Erenberg & Bowman. Same vs. Jack & Warner. Same vs. Prewitt & Servant. Same vs. Whitcher. Same vs. Harris, No. 1. Same vs. Same, No. 2. Same vs. Talbot. Same vs. Northcraft & Thurman.
Case 1.
Indictments.
APPEALS PROM VARIOUS CIRCUITS.
Where the indictment, under the lsi see. of the act of 1854, (sess. acts 1853-4, page 72,) charges betting, and fails to charge that the thing bet was received, judgment can only be rendered for one hundred dollars; and this court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from such judgments. (Civil Code, sec. 342.)
[The facts of the cases are stated by the court in the opinion.—Rep.]
Where the indictment, under the 1st sec. of the act of 1854, (sess. acts 1853-4, p.72,) charges belting, and fails to charge that the thing bet was received, judgment can only be rendered for one hundred dollars ; and this court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from such judgment. (Civil Code, see. 342.)
James Harlan, Attorney General, for the commonwealth—
My impression at first was that this court had not jurisdiction, but upon a careful examination of the statute my doubts upon that subject are removed, as more may be recovered than the $ 100 fine.
I contend that each of these indictments are good under the provisions of sec. 121 of the Criminal Code, which only requires “a statement of the acts consti- ‘ tuting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, ‘ and in such a manner as to enable a person of com- ‘ mon understanding to know what is intended.” The charges in these indictments are for betting on the presidential election of November, 1856. The court know judicially the acts of Congress and of our own state upon this subject; and each of the defendants in these cases knew “what is intended,” and the offense with which he was charged.
It is not necessary to test these indictments by the forms give n by Mr. Archbold, Mr. Chitty, or any other English law writer. The question is, are they good under the Kentucky Code of Criminal procedure?
Dec. 8, 1857.

Opinion:
Chief Justice
Wheat delivered the opinion of the court.
These nine cases are indictments for betting on the election of president of the United States.
The circuit courts sustained a demurrer to each indictment, and the commonwealth has appealed in each case.
The first question raised in each case is, has this court jurisdiction of the case? If the question should be determined in the negative, no notice need be taken of the other questions raised on the records.
The statute "to prohibit the pernicious practice of betting on elections" was approved March 6th, 1854. (Session Acts, 1853-4, page 72.) The first section of this act provides, "that if any person or persons shall ' wager or bet any sum of money, or any thing else ' of value, upon any election under the constitution ' and laws of this commonwealth, or the constitution ' and laws of the United States, he or they, so offend- ' ing, shall forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred ' dollars each, to be recovered by indictment in the ' circuit court of the county where the bet is made, ' or in any other county where the party so offending, ' or any of them, may be found; and, in addition to ' the fine aforesaid, if the person winning shall receive ' the sum of money or other thing so bet, or its value, ' or any thing therefor, the sum of money so receiv- ' ed, or the value of any thing else so received, shall ' be forfeited to the commonwealth, and may be re- ' covered by any appropriate action in the name of * the commonwealth, before the circuit court, or the ' presiding judge of the county court, wherever the ' offending parties, or any of them may be found."
Each of the indictments in question was framed upon the first part of said section, and charges a betting on the election of president of the United States; no one of the indictments charges that the winner received any money, or other thing bet, or its value, or any thing therefor. The indictments, as framed, did not authorize a recovery of the additional penalty or forfeiture imposed by the latter part of said section; consequently, the recovery in each case, against each person, was limited to the sum of one hundred dollars.
Section 342, in the Criminal Code of Practice, regulates the jurisdiction of this court in prosecutions for misdemeanors, and is in these words: "The court ' of appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction in pros-1 ecutions for misdemeanors, in the following cases ' only: where the judgment is for a fine exceeding one ' hundred dollars, or for imprisonment exceeding fifty ' days, and where the judgment is for the defendant ' in a case where a fine exceeding one hundred dol- ' lars, or confinement exceeding fifty days, could have ' been inflicted."
Having seen that each of these indictments was so framed as to authorize only a recovery of the penalty 0f one hundred dollars for unlawful betting on the election, in case of conviction, it results that this court has no jurisdiction of the appeals, consequently will not decide upon the other questions raised upon the several records.
Wherefore, the several appeals are now dismissed for want of jurisdiction by this court.