Hinkle v. Commonwealth

34 Ky. 518, 4 Dana 518, 1836 Ky. LEXIS 111
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedOctober 24, 1836
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 34 Ky. 518 (Hinkle v. Commonwealth) 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
Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 34 Ky. 518, 4 Dana 518, 1836 Ky. LEXIS 111 (Ky. Ct. App. 1836).

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The plaintiff having been fined five hundred dollars, on conviction, upon an indictment charging him with having set up, and kept a gaming table, and induced others to bet at it—only two questions are presented on this writ of error, prosecuted by him, to reverse the judgment: First:—whether the proof was sufficient. Second—whether offences, which may be distinct, being charged in the same count, the indictment is good?

We are of opinion that there is no error. First. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding, that the facts charged were true; and to justify the deduction also, that the offence charged had been committed since the date of a previous offence of a similar character, for which the plaintiff liad been before convicted. Second. 'Although the setting up of a gaming table may alone be an indictable offence, the keeping of such table, and the inducing of any person to bet upon it, another, when each shall have been committed by different persons, or at different times; nevertheless, as they are co-operating acts, constituting altogether one of-fence, when committed by the same person, at the same time, an indictment for that combined act in violation of law, may properly charge the whole in one count; and but one punishment can be inflicted, as- for one offence.

Wherefore, the judgment must be. affirmed,

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Wilkerson
258 S.W. 297 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1924)
State v. Lawson
145 S.W. 92 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Morganstern v. Commonwealth
26 S.E. 402 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1896)
Stearns v. State
32 A. 282 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1895)
People v. Sullivan
9 Utah 195 (Utah Supreme Court, 1893)
United States v. Byrne
44 F. 188 (E.D. Missouri, 1890)
Devere v. State
3 Ohio Cir. Dec. 249 (Lucas Circuit Court, 1890)
Devere v. State
5 Ohio C.C. 509 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1890)
State v. Burgess
40 Me. 592 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1885)
State v. Colgate
31 Kan. 511 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1884)
Leath v. Commonwealth
73 Va. 873 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1879)
Hart v. State
2 Tex. Ct. App. 39 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1877)
United States v. Nunnemacher
27 F. Cas. 202 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1876)
Phillips v. State
29 Tex. 226 (Texas Supreme Court, 1867)
Fisher v. Commonwealth
64 Ky. 211 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1866)
Commonwealth v. Curtis
91 Mass. 266 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1864)
Byrne v. State
12 Wis. 519 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1860)
Wingard v. State
13 Ga. 396 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1853)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Ky. 518, 4 Dana 518, 1836 Ky. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinkle-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1836.