Case Name: STATE v. CAPELL
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1923-11-05
Citations: 154 La. 662
Docket Number: No. 26234
Parties: STATE v. CAPELL.
Judges: By , Division C, composed of Justices OVERTON, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 661–664

Head Matter:
(98 South. 58)
No. 26234.
STATE v. CAPELL.
(Nov. 5, 1923.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;sl090(l6) — Refusal of new •trial not reviewable in absence of formal bill ' of exception.
A refusal of a new trial in a criminal case cannot be reviewed in the absence of a formal bill of exception.
2. Statutes107(3) — Statute defining gambling held not invalid as having more than one . object.
Act No. 12 of 1870, by its title clearly expressing its purpose to repeal the conflicting provisions of the Revenue Law of 1869 and to define and punish gambling, was not invalid, oven though it had two objects, since Const. 1868, art. 114, permitted a statute to have more than one object, proVided those objects were expressed in the title.
3. Indictment and information <&wkey;>'l 10(16)—In-formation charging operation of banking game in language of statute sufficient.
It is sufficient if an information charges the offense of operating a banking game in the language of the statute.
4. Jury <&wkey;22 (2)—Defendant properly tried before judge alone for operating banking game.
In a prosecution for operating a banking game in violation of Act No. 12 of 1870, it was proper to try defendant before the judge alone, it not being charged that it was a second offense, and he being liable for a first offense to a fine only and not to imprisonment at hard labor, in view of Const. 1921, art. 7, § 41.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;968(8)— Questions of fact requiring evidence not reviewable on motion , in arrest of judgment.
Questions of fqct requiring evidence are not reviewable on a motion in arrest of judgment in a criminal case. ,
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; Richard A. Dowling, Judge.
John Capell was convicted of operating a .banking game, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Maurice R) Woulfe, of New Orleans, for appellant.
A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Marr, Dist. Atty., and T. V. Craven, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
By , Division C, composed of Justices OVERTON, ST. PAUL, and THOMPSON.

Opinion:
ST. PAUL, J.
Defendant was convicted of a violation of Act 12 of 1870, to wit, for operating a "banking game."
I.
The ruling of the trial judge refusing a new trial cannot be reviewed by us for want of a formal bill of exception. In State v. Haines, 51 La. Ann. 731, 25 South. 372, 44 L. R. A. 837, this court held:
"To have a mere note entered on the record, 'bill of exception reserved,' is, in a criminal case, no bill whatever. Bills of exception in criminal trials should be signed by the trial judge."
II.
The motion in arrest of judgment is without merit.
(1) Act 12 of 1870, had but one object, to wit, to re-enact as law the provisions of Act 120 of 1855 (now R. S. § 911), punishing the keeping of a banking game, which had been repealed (by implication) by a section of the revenue law of 1869 (Act No. 114). But even if it could be said that a statute which purposes to repeal a repealing law and at the same time re-enact the repealed statute has two objects (which we deny) yet under the Constitution then existing a statute might have more than one object, provided those objects were expressed in its title. Const. 1868, art. 114. • And the title to Act 12 of 1870 clearly expresses its purpose to repeal the conflicting provisions of the revenue law of 1869 and to define and punish gambling.
(2) The information charges the of.fense in the language of the statute, and that suffices.
(3) The defendant was properly tried before the judge alone. It was not charged that this was his second offense; and for a first offense he was liable, under- the statute, to a fine only, and not to imprisonment at hard labor. Const. 1921, art. 7, § 41, p. 50.
(4) Questions of fact, requiring evidence, are not reviewable on a motion in arrest of judgment.
Decree.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affivmed.