Case Name: UNITED STATES v. MILBURN
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1838-03
Citations: 26 F. Cas. 1253
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES v. MILBURN.
Judges: (CRANCH, Chief Judge, contra, as to the second count)
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 26
Pages: 1253–1253

Head Matter:
Case No. 15,768.
UNITED STATES v. MILBURN.
[5 Cranch, C. C. 390.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
March Term, 1838.
Gaming—Faro-Bank—Indictment.
An indictment for keeping a “gaming-table,” is insufficient; it should charge the keeping of a common gaming-table. An indictment for keeping a faro-bank is also bad; it should be a common faro-bank; or “a faro-bank, the same being a common gaming-table.”
[Cited in Stettinius v. U. S., Case No. 13,387.]
[Cited in People v. Sponsler, 1 Dak. 289, 46 N. W. 460.]
Indictment [against George Milburn] containing two counts: 1st, That the defendant kept “a gaming-table, against the form of the statute,” &e. 2d. That he kept “a faro-bank against the form of the statute,” &c.
W. L. Brent, for defendant,
demurred to the whole indictment, because neither count charges the keeping of a common gaming-table, or a common faro-bank, or a faro-bank, the same being a common gaming-table, and cited U. S. v. Cooly [Case No. 14,859], and U. S. v. Ringgold [Id. 16,167].
Mr. Key, contra,
contended that it was sufficient to charge the offence in the words of the statute, and cited 1 Chit. 281. The words of the twelfth section of the penitentiary act are, “that every person duly convicted of keeping a faro-bank or gaming-table shall be sentenced to suffer imprisonment and labor, for a period not less than one year, nor more than five years.”
[Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

Opinion:
But THE COURT
(CRANCH, Chief Judge, contra, as to the second count)
stopped Mr. Brent in reply, and quashed the indictment. See Archb. Cr. Pl. 24.