{
  "id": 1887731,
  "name": "State v. Hester",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hester",
  "decision_date": "1886-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "42",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 Ark. 40"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2447,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.034763965763535e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4657005099525107
    },
    "sha256": "e9bde21cb4d86ade9c6289de1674329c517991caca19d2568edb4d14224bb75d",
    "simhash": "1:a0e58489f3e74594",
    "word_count": 426
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:09.721792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "State v. Hester."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cockrill, C. J.\nThe appellee was indicted under sec. 1835, Mans. Dig., for gaming. He was charged with playing a game known as \u201c craps,\u201d which the indictment alleged was 8 game of \u201c hazard or skill.\u201d A demurrer was sustained to the indictment.\nIt is supposed that the disjunctive \u201cor\u201d was the objection to it. There is, however, no duplicity in the indictment.\nThe accused was called upon to answer to the charge of betting at a specific game \u2014 not one of several games described in the alternative \u2014 and if that game was one of hazard or skill, and he had bet at it, the offense was com. p\u00edete.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to overrule the demurrer.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cockrill, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dan W. Jones, Attorney-General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "State v. Hester.\nIndictment: Gaining.\nAn indictment for belting at a game of \u201chazard or skill\u201d is not objecjectionable for the disjunctive \u201cor.\u201d\nAPPEAL from Drew Circuit Court.\nHon. John M. Bradley, Judge.\nDan W. Jones, Attorney-General, for appellee.\nThe appellee was indicted under sec. 1835, Mans Dig., for gaming. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained. The indictment followed the statute in charging the game to have been one of \u201c hazard or skill.\u201d It is supposed that the use of the disjunctive \u201cor\u201d was the objection to the indictment.\nSec. 3107, Mans. Dig., says that no indictment shall be insufficient on account of any defect which \u201c does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits\u201d of the case. Here the game played is named, as well as the instrument with which it is played, and the appellee knew that he was charged with playing \u201c crapsand if there was an issue, evidence respecting that game would be adduced.\nIf it was a game of either hazard or skill it was an offense. If the word \u201cand\u201d had been used instead of \u201c or,\u201d there would have been no question as to its sufficiency. How, then, are \u201c the substantial rights \u201d of the appellee \u201cprejudiced\u201d by charging either, when he could be legally charged with both, and where the proof in both cases would necessarily be identical ? The indictment is certain, and is unlike cases charging playing distinct games in the alternative, as playing keno, or craps, or tiger, etc.\nSec. 184-0, Mans. Dig., makes the rules governing the courts in such cases different from those applicable to ordinary criminal offenses. The appellee was to answer as to one certain kind of game, and no other, and if it was one of either hazard or skill he would be guilty."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 44,
  "last_page_order": 46
}