Ward v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ward v. State

37 Ala. 158

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 Ala. 158 (Ward v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ward v. State, 37 Ala. 158 (Ala. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

The defendant was indicted under section^ 3256 of the Code, which is in the following language:'.' “Any white person, who plays at cards with any slave orr free negro, must, on conviction, be fined,” &c. We think-[160]*160that, to come within this section, a game must be entered upon, and some act done towards its completion. Amusing one’s self with cards, as with toys, will not make out the offense. It is not necessary, however, that the game shall be completely played out. If the game be in part entered upon, the statute is violated. — Coggins v. The State, 7 Porter, 264; Holland v. The State, 3 Por. 292; Cochran v. The State, 30 Ala. 542; Webster’s Dictionary, “To play.”

The testimony recited in the bill of exceptions, shows that the defendant and the slave were seated on opposite sides of a box, each holding in his hand four, five, or more cards, — while beside them lay the pack, with the top card face-upwards. On seeing the witness, the defendant and the slave bunched the cards, and some expressions were indulged as to fortune-telling. This was all the evidence tending to prove the defendant’s guilt. We concede, that these circumstances may have been strong, and from them the jury may have inferred that the parties had seated themselves to play at cards, and had so far entered upon the game as .to deal out hauds and turn up a trump ; yet, in order to establish the defendant’s guilt, it was necessary that the j ury should find a further fact or facts than were positively sworn to by the witness. Such further fact or facts, the law, unassisted by a jury, could not infer. We think the. court, in its charge, invaded the province of the jury. — Ogletree v. The State, 28 Ala. 700 ; Scitz v. The State, 23 Ala. 42; Morgan v. The State, 33 Ala. 413; 1 Bish. Cr. Law, § 251.

Revei-sed and.remanded.

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

STONE, J.

The defendant was indicted under section^ 3256 of the Code, which is in the following language:'.' “Any white person, who plays at cards with any slave orr free negro, must, on conviction, be fined,” &c. We think-[160]*160that, to come within this section, a game must be entered upon, and some act done towards its completion. Amusing one’s self with cards, as with toys, will not make out the offense. It is not necessary, however, that the game shall be completely played out. If the game be in part entered upon, the statute is violated. — Coggins v. The State, 7 Porter, 264; Holland v. The State, 3 Por. 292; Cochran v. The State, 30 Ala. 542; Webster’s Dictionary, “To play.”

The testimony recited in the bill of exceptions, shows that the defendant and the slave were seated on opposite sides of a box, each holding in his hand four, five, or more cards, — while beside them lay the pack, with the top card face-upwards. On seeing the witness, the defendant and the slave bunched the cards, and some expressions were indulged as to fortune-telling. This was all the evidence tending to prove the defendant’s guilt. We concede, that these circumstances may have been strong, and from them the jury may have inferred that the parties had seated themselves to play at cards, and had so far entered upon the game as .to deal out hauds and turn up a trump ; yet, in order to establish the defendant’s guilt, it was necessary that the j ury should find a further fact or facts than were positively sworn to by the witness. Such further fact or facts, the law, unassisted by a jury, could not infer. We think the. court, in its charge, invaded the province of the jury. — Ogletree v. The State, 28 Ala. 700 ; Scitz v. The State, 23 Ala. 42; Morgan v. The State, 33 Ala. 413; 1 Bish. Cr. Law, § 251.

Revei-sed and.remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Ala. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-ala-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack