Commonwealth v. Folie

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Commonwealth v. Folie

1 Ky. Op. 408, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 364

DecidedJune 6, 1866

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ky. Op. 408 (Commonwealth v. Folie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Folie, 1 Ky. Op. 408, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 364 (Ky. Ct. App. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Marshall:

We do not know on what ground this indictment for unlatyful gaming in the premises of another was adjudged to be insufficient. [409]*409It avers that on a day designated by date, in the county and State aforesaid, Folie did unlawfully engage in and play divers games of cards, being games of chance, in the premises of Van W. Keene and Vm. H. Lamaram, at each and all of which divers sums of money and property were bet, won, and lost, without the permission of the owner, controller, occupier, or tenant of said premises, contrary to the statute, etc.

The indictment is intended to charge the commission of the offense defined in the first section of the Act of January, 1856, entitled “An act to amend chapter 42 of the Revised Statutes, title gaming” (1 Stant. Rev. Stat. 571). We think it sufficiently describes and identifies the offense defined in the statute. No particular objection being made to the indictment we need only say that in our opinion it is sufficiently specific to apprise the defendant of the particular, charge against him and to enable him to make his defense if he has any.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Marshall:

We do not know on what ground this indictment for unlatyful gaming in the premises of another was adjudged to be insufficient. [409]*409It avers that on a day designated by date, in the county and State aforesaid, Folie did unlawfully engage in and play divers games of cards, being games of chance, in the premises of Van W. Keene and Vm. H. Lamaram, at each and all of which divers sums of money and property were bet, won, and lost, without the permission of the owner, controller, occupier, or tenant of said premises, contrary to the statute, etc.

The indictment is intended to charge the commission of the offense defined in the first section of the Act of January, 1856, entitled “An act to amend chapter 42 of the Revised Statutes, title gaming” (1 Stant. Rev. Stat. 571). We think it sufficiently describes and identifies the offense defined in the statute. No particular objection being made to the indictment we need only say that in our opinion it is sufficiently specific to apprise the defendant of the particular, charge against him and to enable him to make his defense if he has any.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ky. Op. 408, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-folie-kyctapp-1866.