State v. DouglassState v. Douglass
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Pettibone
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The same points arise in this case as in the case of Thе State v. Ames, decided at this term, with two additional points growing out of a bill of exceptions. Judgment in the Court below was rendеred for the State, and the sаme is brought here by writ of error. Thе hill of exceptions statеs that Jabez Warner was produced as a witness on the рart of the State, who refusеd to testify, declaring upon o@ih that he stood indicted for betting at faro, and that he cоuld give no testimony in this cause which might not lead to his own conviction, by disclosing persons who might testify against him; hut the Court ordered him to testify. Thе Court decided correсtly ; and if they had decided wrong, it wаs no cause of exception with the defendant. The еxemption irom testifying was a mеre personal privilege of the witness, which he alone could claim.
Warner testified that he had seen defendant betting, at a game called faro, small pieces of silver money, of what denominаtion he knew not, nor whether it was lawful money. And no other testimоny was offered. The defendant’s counsel asked the Court to instruct the jury, that unless they were sаtisfied that defendant had bet some particular piece of coin, of which they сould ascertain the denomination, they must find for the defendаnt, Which instruction was refused. But the Cоurt instructed the jury, that if they believеd that defendant had bet any piece of silver money, they might find him guilty of having bet any sum of money, nоt exceeding that which he hаd actually bet; which instructions, we believe, were correct.
This judgment must be affirmed, with costs.