State v. Darroch

40 N.E. 639, 12 Ind. App. 527, 1895 Ind. App. LEXIS 140
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 4, 1895
DocketNo. 1,621
StatusPublished

This text of 40 N.E. 639 (State v. Darroch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Darroch, 40 N.E. 639, 12 Ind. App. 527, 1895 Ind. App. LEXIS 140 (Ind. Ct. App. 1895).

Opinion

Lotz, J. —

The appellee was charged with violating section 2174, R. S. 1894 (Elliott’s Supp., section 346).

The indictment was in two counts. The court sustained a motion to quash each count. These rulings of the court are the errors assigned.

The first count charges that the appellant (and fourteen others), acting as the directors, officers and managers of the Kentland Agricultural Fair Association, the same being an agricultural fair association organized under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana, on or about the 14th day of September, 1894, at said county and State, did then and there unlawfully rent, lease and donate a portion of the grounds and premises owned and used and occupied by the above named association and society to one Charles Grument, to be used for the purpose of carrying on a game of chance with dice, etc.

[528]*528Filed May 4, 1895.

The second count is the same as the first, except the game and wagering device are differently described.

Each count is sufficient within the rule announced by this court in the case of State v. Howard, 9 Ind. App. 635.

Judgment reversed, with instruction to overrule the motions to quash.

Ross, C. J., was absent.

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

Related

State v. Howard
37 N.E. 27 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 N.E. 639, 12 Ind. App. 527, 1895 Ind. App. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-darroch-indctapp-1895.