182 A. 202 | Vt. | 1936
The respondent is charged with violating P.L. 8685 which, as far as here material, provides: "A person who sells a lottery ticket or an interest therein, or a paper purporting to be a lottery ticket or an interest therein, * * * or acts as a broker or agent in buying, selling or procuring to be bought or sold or disposed of in any way such ticket or interest therein, * * * shall be fined not more than three hundred dollars." The complaint contains nine counts. The respondent demurred to each count; the demurrer was overruled subject to his exceptions, and the case was passed to this Court before final judgment as provided by P.L. 2072.
Count I of the complaint charges that respondent "a lottery ticket, to wit, a ticket commonly known as a nigger pool ticket, did sell to one Robert Sullivan."
Count 2 charges that respondent "did sell a paper purporting to be a lottery ticket, to wit, a paper purporting to be a ticket commonly known as a nigger pool ticket to one Robert Sullivan."
Count 3 charges that respondent "did sell a lottery ticket, to wit, a ticket commonly known as a nigger pool ticket to one Bernard Dussault."
Count 5 charges that respondent acting as agent for one Wersebe did sell lottery ticket, of the same tenor as the one described in count 3, to one Dussault. *9
Counts 4, 7 and 9 are in substance like count 2, and counts 6 and 8 are in substance like count 3.
The respondent's contention is that neither the lottery, tickets of which it is alleged that he sold, nor the tickets themselves are sufficiently described to apprise him of the charge he is called upon to answer. He says, "Every ingredient of which the offense is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged in the indictment." Generally speaking, this is true.State v. Caplan,
Judgment overruling the demurrer affirmed, and cause remanded.