Moore v. State

Nebraska Supreme Court

Moore v. State

96 N.W. 196, 69 Neb. 653, 1903 Neb. LEXIS 91

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 3, 1903

DocketNo. 13,119

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 96 N.W. 196 (Moore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. State, 96 N.W. 196, 69 Neb. 653, 1903 Neb. LEXIS 91 (Neb. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Duffie, C.

The plaintiff in error Avas informed against under section 217 of the criminal code for alloAving games to he played at a saloon of Avhich he Avas the proprietor. The information does not name the parties Avho were allowed to play, nor does it allege that such parties are unknoAvn. He was convicted and fined, and uoav prosecutes error. Sections 216 and 217 of our crimihal code Avere copied from an Ohio statute, approved March 12, 1831,. At an early day the supreme court of Ohio held-that an “indictment for permitting gambling must recite the parties, or allege that they are unknown,” Davis v. State, 7 Ohio, [654]*654205. It is true that the indictment in that case was brought under the section corresponding to section 216 of our criminal code, but it is apparent that the same necessity existed for naming the parties, if known, in a charge brought under section 217 as when brought under the preceding section. • The highest court of the state from which the statute was adopted having passed upon the cpiestion, the presumption obtains that the legislature of this state in adopting, the statute did so in the light of the construction given it by the supreme court of Ohio from which it was borrowed.

The information was defective in the respect named, and we recommend a reversal of the judgment.

Pound and Kirkpatrick, CO., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion,vthe judgment of the district court is

Reversed.

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

Duffie, C.

The plaintiff in error Avas informed against under section 217 of the criminal code for alloAving games to he played at a saloon of Avhich he Avas the proprietor. The information does not name the parties Avho were allowed to play, nor does it allege that such parties are unknoAvn. He was convicted and fined, and uoav prosecutes error. Sections 216 and 217 of our crimihal code Avere copied from an Ohio statute, approved March 12, 1831,. At an early day the supreme court of Ohio held-that an “indictment for permitting gambling must recite the parties, or allege that they are unknown,” Davis v. State, 7 Ohio, [654]*654205. It is true that the indictment in that case was brought under the section corresponding to section 216 of our criminal code, but it is apparent that the same necessity existed for naming the parties, if known, in a charge brought under section 217 as when brought under the preceding section. • The highest court of the state from which the statute was adopted having passed upon the cpiestion, the presumption obtains that the legislature of this state in adopting, the statute did so in the light of the construction given it by the supreme court of Ohio from which it was borrowed.

The information was defective in the respect named, and we recommend a reversal of the judgment.

Pound and Kirkpatrick, CO., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion,vthe judgment of the district court is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 N.W. 196, 69 Neb. 653, 1903 Neb. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-neb-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack