State v. Martin
This text of 44 A. 605 (State v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
“ In a complaint or indictment in any case arising under the preceding sections,a lottery maybe described as a pretended lottery, which shall be sufficient, whatever the proof may be; and it shall not be necessary to-allege or prove, upon trial, who is the owner of the property, nor who manages, conducts, or draws the lottery, or participates therein.” P. S., c. 270, s. 4. The game of policy being a lottery, the indictment sets forth all that is required under the statute. It charges the defendant with an offence in the words of the statute, and describes to him the particular kind of a lottery he is charged with making and putting up. State v. Follet, 6 N. H. 58; State v. Clarke, 33 N. H. 329; State v. Moore, 63 N. H. 9; Commonwealth v. Wright, 137 Mass. 250; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 146 Mass. 142.
.Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 A. 605, 68 N.H. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martin-nh-1896.