General
Ball v. The State
7 Blackf. 242·Supreme Court of Indiana·1844·IN
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Ball v. The State.
Monday, November 25.
An indictment against a person for suffering gaming in his grocery, should give the names of the persons who played, or state their names to be unknown.
ERROR to the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.
J. Pettit and S. A. Huff, for the plaintiff
A. A. Hammond and S. Major, for the state.
[MAJORITY — Blackford, J. Per Curiam.]
Blackford, J.
— Indictment against a person for suffering certain unlawful games with cards for brandy, money, &c., to be played in his grocery. Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment for the state.
This indictment does not give the names of the persons who played, nor does it state their names to be unknown. It is for that omission bad, according to the principle on which the cases of Butler v. The State, 5 Blackf. 280, and The State v. Irvin, Id. 343, were decided.
Per Curiam.
— The judgment is reversed.