State v. Henson

Indiana Supreme Court

State v. Henson

86 N.E. 482, 171 Ind. 725

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1908

DocketNos. 21,190-21,198

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.E. 482 (State v. Henson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Henson, 86 N.E. 482, 171 Ind. 725 (Ind. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, J.

Appellees, in these cases are charged upon affidavits with having unlawfully visited a gambling house in Orange county, Indiana, in violation of section 470 of the public offenses statute of 1905 (Acts 1905, pp. 584, 693, §2371 Burns 1908). Upon their motions the affidavits- were quashed and judgments rendered discharging them without day. The state appeals, and assigns that the court erred in sustaining said motions. The charging part of said affidavits is identical with that involved in State v. Bridgewater (1908), ante, 1. The same questions in regard to theii: sufficiency are presented and urged by counsel as in the latter appeal. Upon the authority of the decision in that case, the affidavits herein must be held sufficient.

The judgments below are reversed, with instructions to the lower court to overrule the motions to quash.

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

Jordan, J.

Appellees, in these cases are charged upon affidavits with having unlawfully visited a gambling house in Orange county, Indiana, in violation of section 470 of the public offenses statute of 1905 (Acts 1905, pp. 584, 693, §2371 Burns 1908). Upon their motions the affidavits- were quashed and judgments rendered discharging them without day. The state appeals, and assigns that the court erred in sustaining said motions. The charging part of said affidavits is identical with that involved in State v. Bridgewater (1908), ante, 1. The same questions in regard to theii: sufficiency are presented and urged by counsel as in the latter appeal. Upon the authority of the decision in that case, the affidavits herein must be held sufficient.

The judgments below are reversed, with instructions to the lower court to overrule the motions to quash.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.E. 482, 171 Ind. 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-henson-ind-1908.