Prior v. StatePrior v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Dipscomb
Tliis is аn appeal from a judgmеnt rendered on a conviсtion for playing cards at a public place.
The оnly point presented for оur consideration arises from a supposed failure in the proof to support thе charge in the indictment, as tо the place.’ The indictment charges the playing to hаve been ‘•‘in a store-house for retailing .spirituous liquors,. then and there situated, and then and there being occupied and •used by one Alexander Bonner аs a store-house for retailing spirituous liquors, the same being thеn and there a public place.’’’’ The evidence fully sustained the charge, as made in the indictment, as to the playing and as to its being in a store-hоuse used for retailing spirituous liquors, and in every *193particular except as to the ownеrship or occupant or the house. The witiie~s said that lie (iki not know who was the owner~ or the occupant at thаt thue ; that it had sever~I times beеn changed from the occupancy of one to aiuotlier. The most material fact, and indeed all that it was necessary to have beоi i averred. was tile playing at a piih‘io place оl at a house occuрied for ret iing spirit ions liquors. It could not hnporta to allege who owned or or (pied (liе h:>use. Such an inquiry coi l only ha~ , kеen essential had the owner or occupant beеn indicted for permit ting playing at cards in his house. In this indictment it is nothing mоre than surplusage ; tIme indictment is good without it. Time evidence supports all that is material to have been alleged.
Judgment affirmed.