{
  "id": 1900547,
  "name": "State v. Rhea et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rhea",
  "decision_date": "1882-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "555",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 Ark. 555"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "34 Ark., 433",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875603
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/34/0433-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ark., 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877184
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/32/0203-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 3503,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.669500340943079e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45230301071606877
    },
    "sha256": "e3ba87ef3a3f4af2e50a09313b76850510cffdd63302dbbae0afcf93f14811ec",
    "simhash": "1:1081c640fa5d3639",
    "word_count": 601
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:01.048516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "State v. Rhea et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Harrison, J.\nThe demurrer to the indictment being \u2022\u2022entered in short upon the record, there was no assignment of the causes or grounds therefor ; it is,- however, apparent \u2022that the objection relied upon, was, that more than one offense was charged.\nExcept in the cases mentioned in sections 1784 and 1351, an indictment must charge but one offense ; but if the offense may have been committed in different modes, and by different means, it may allege the modes and means in the alternative, and in distinct counts. Sec. 1783, Gantt\u2019s Digest. The State v. Jourdan, 32 Ark., 203; Howard v. The State, 34 Ark., 433.\nThere is nothing in the record by which it was indicated \"that but one act of gaming, or but one offense was intended to be charged, or that the playing of the game of cards \u2022called set-back, charged in the second and fifth counts, was \"the same act of gaming charged ; but in different modes in the first, third and fourth; and two offenses, at least, as held by the court, are apparently charged. Therefore, as-the prosecuting attorney would dismiss neither, the demurrer was, according to section 1840, properly sustained, and the indictment quashed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Harrison, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. B. Moore, Attorney-General, for plaintiff in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "State v. Rhea et al.\n1. Gaming: Indictment in several paragraphs, when demurrable.\nAn indictment for gaming, containing several paragraphs, and not. indicating that they are all intended to charg-* hut one offense, is had on demurrer.\nERROR to Johnson Circuit Court.\nHon. W. D. Jacoway, Circuit Judge.\nSTATEMENT.\nIndictment in the Johnson Circuit Court, in five counts,, against J. A. Rhea and F. R. McKennon, for gaming; the-first count charging that \u201cthe said J. A. Rhea and F. R. McKennon, on the tenth day of February, 1880, in the county and.State aforesaid, unlawfully did mutually bet the-sum of five dollars in money together with each other, and with W. M. Brown, and a man whose name is to the grand jurors unknown, on a certain game of cards, commonly called \u2018pitch,\u2019 then and there played with cards, by the said J. A. Rhea, F. R. McKennon, W. M. Brown, and. the said man, whose name is to the grand jurors unknown, against,\u201d etc.\nThe second count charged that they played and bet five-cents on a game called \u201cset-back.\u201d The third, charged that they played and bet two oranges, each of the value of five cents, on a game called \u201cpitch.\u201d The fourth, that they played, and bet a box of oysters, of the value of ten cents, on a game called \u201cpitch ;\u201d and the fifth, that they played, and bet a can of oysters, of the value of ten cents, and two-oranges each, 'of the value of five cents, on a game called \u201cset-back.\u201d Except as to the game and bets as above stated, all the counts were alike.\nThe defendant demurred in short by consent upon the-record. The court required the prosecuting attorney to \u2022elect to prosecute, either upon counts 1st, 3d and 4th, or upon \"2d and 5th, which being refused, the court sustained the demurrer, quashed the indictment, and discharged the defendants, and the State brought error.\nC. B. Moore, Attorney-General, for plaintiff in error.\nUnder sec. 1564, Gantt\u2019s Digest, it is sufficient to charge the offense of \u201cgaming,\u201d without specifying name of game gplayed. The indictment is in good form substantially, and charges every necessary fact. The counts are substantially the same upon the essential points in the indictment, .viz: \u201cbetting and playing a game of cards.\u201d Does the fact that the same offense js charged, in five different \u2022counts, weaken the indictment? We think not."
  },
  "file_name": "0555-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 555
}