Case Name: UNITED STATES v. ISMENARD et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1803-12
Citations: 26 F. Cas. 554
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES v. ISMENARD et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 26
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
Case No. 15,450.
UNITED STATES v. ISMENARD et al.
[1 Cranch, C. C. 150.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Dec. Term, 1803.
INuisanoes—Gaming Houses—Joint Indictment.
1. A public gaming-house is a public nuisance at common law.
[Followed in U. S. v. Mickle, Case No. 15,763. • Cited in U. S. v. Holly, Id. 15,381; U. S. v. Milburn, Id. 15,767.]
[Cited in People v. Sponsler, 1 Dak. 289, 46 N. W. 460.]
2. Upon a joint indictment the judgment must be several.
[Cited in U. S. v. Holly, Case No. 15,381.]
Indictment [against John F. Ismenard, John Ismenard, and Robert’ Smith] for keeping a public gaming-house. 1st count, common nuisance; 2d, under the act of assembly of Maryland, 1797, c. 110, prohibiting faro-tables, and other gambling devices, to be kept by tavern-keepers and retailers of wine and spirits.
Mr. Mason, for the District,
cited 1 Hawk. P. C. 360, 362, that a public gaming-house is a common nuisance.
E. B. Caldwell and P. B. Key,
contended that playing at cards or dice is not malum in se; nor in itself an offence at common law. 11 Coke, 87b. And that a public gaming-house is no offence at common law unless it become disorderly, so as to disturb the neighbors. 4 Bl. Commi 167, 171.
But THE COURT (nem. con.) instructed the jury that a public gaming-house is a common nuisance. The verdict having been rendered against the defendants upon the first count only, and the indictment being joint, it became a question whether the judgment should be joint or several; and the following authorities were cited; Jones v. Com., 1 Call, 555; Godfrey’s Case, 11 Coke, 42; 2 Hawk. P. C. bk. 2, p. 633. c. 4S, §§ 10, 17, 18; Esp. N. P. 420 ; 2 Hawk. P. C. p. 342, c. 25, § 89.
[Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

Opinion:
THE COURT
imposed the fines severally: namely, on J. F. Ismenard, $133%. on John Ismenard, $50, on Robert Smith, $25; and required each of them to give security in five hundred dollars for his good behavior for one year.