{ "id": 8659539, "name": "STATE v. MORGAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Morgan", "decision_date": "1903-12-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "743", "last_page": "746", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "133 N.C. 743" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "19 Am. St. Rep., 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 809", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652104 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0809-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Md., 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1846936 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/42/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N. C., 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698711 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/84/0737-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 382, "char_count": 6153, "ocr_confidence": 0.417, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.6240663660213343e-07, "percentile": 0.8888178422757466 }, "sha256": "aa6b81cb5a0f977107945a52d49f5869f22dfb43f7b10709d111a8f0bf0b023c", "simhash": "1:854ce727a0befeeb", "word_count": 1067 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:14:21.840787+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. MORGAN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Montgomeey, J.\nThe bill of indictment in this ease contained two counts. In the first the defendant was charged with keeping and maintaining a gaming house \u2014 a nuisance at common law; and in the second with playing cards, a game of chance, for money, under chapter 29 of the Laws of 1891. Tbe counsel of defendant entered a motion to quasb tbe indictment upon two grounds: First, because two offenses \u201ccreated by different statutes\u201d and punished differently were joined; and second, for that tbe indictment did not charge that the games played were ones of chance, and that they were' played at a place, or tables, where games of chance were played; and further, that the offense of keeping a common gaming house is a separate offense from playing at a game of chance, and as the two offenses are charged in the same indictment no judgment could be pronounced upon a general verdict of guilty.\nThe Court committed no error in refusing the motion. The two offenses charged, separate and distinct as they are, are not felonies but misdemeanors, and they can be properly charged in the same indictment; and the punshment prescribed by law for each was not different. The Court might have, in its discretion, quashed the indictment, but was not compelled to do so. State v. King, 84 N. C., 737; Wharton Criminal Law, sec. 414.\nBesides, the offenses charged in the indictment, though distinct, are of the same nature, and a similar judgment might be passed in each case, and there can be no objection to the indictment setting forth the offenses in different counts. Wharton, supra, section 415.\n\u00c1 case exactly in point is that of Wheeler v. State, 42 Md., 563. In that case it was decided that \u201ccounts under the statute against gaming and counts for keeping and maintaining such a common gambling house as to constitute a nuisance at common law may be properly joined in the same indictment.\u201d\nAs to the defendant\u2019s second ground for the quashing of the indictment: It was not necessary to charge in the indictment that the games played at the gaming house were games of chance. That is sufficiently implied in charging that the defendant kept a common gaming bouse, the word \u201cgaming\u201d having a definite meaning in law, i. e., gambling, the act of playing games for stakes or wages. It is not essential either that the game should be played by using ordinary gaming gards. Gaming may be done by other means or devices as well as cards. When the law uses the word \u201cgaming\u201d it not only uses a term well defined and known to the law writers, hut its meaning is well understood by the citizens of the Commonwealth; and when the words \u201cgaming house\u201d are used all English-speaking people know the meaning of them. They know the truth of the language used by this Court in the case of State v. Black, 94 N. C., 809, where it was said: \u201cA house so kept is a public nuisance. The natural tendency of it is to corrupt and debauch those who frequent it. It gives rise to cheating and other corrupt practices; it incites to idleness, encourages dishonest ways of gaining property, and brings together for unlawful and vicious purposes numbers greater or smaller of idle and evil-disposed persons, who corrupt others, especially younger persons who might otherwise be honest, industrious and useful people.\u201d\nThe first witness introduced for the State was asked if he ever saw any cards played in the room of the defendant. He declined to answer the question on the ground that the answer might tend to criminate him, and claimed his constitutional privilege. Under protest he was compelled to answer questions tending to prove the gaming. He was properly made to answer the questions. The Code, sec. 1215. But suppose he was not made competent by section 1215, and should not have been made to answer the questions, the ruling of his Honor would have only been injurious to the witness, for it was a matter entirely personal to him. The defendant could not complain of it. In the case of Boyer v. Teague, 106 N. C., at p. 625, 19 Am. St. Rep., 547 \u2014 the ease of a contest for a public office \u2014 the Court said: \u201cNeither contestant nor con-testee is called upon to contend for the rights of a witness who does not demand protection, and if compelled to testify against his will it does not follow that testimony, competent without objection on his part, should not go to the jury for what it may be worth.\u201d The right to refuse to answer incriminating questions is a personal privilege of the witness, and can be claimed by him only, and not by either party. 11 Am. & Eng. Ene., p. 541, and cases there cited. Several other witnesses who participated in gaming at the defendant\u2019s gaming house testified under their protest and compulsion of the Court.\nAt the conclusion of the State\u2019s evidence the defendant\u2019s counsel moved that the solicitor be required to elect upon which count he would ask for a .verdict. The Court properly refused to grant the motion, for reasons we have already set out in discussing the motion to quash, and for the same reasons the motions and arrest of judgment were properly refused.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Montgomeey, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.", "No counsel for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. MORGAN.\n(Filed December 18, 1903.)\n1. INDICTMENT \u2014 Counts\u2014Misjoinder\u2014Acts 1891, oh. 29 \u2014 Gaming.\nIt is not a misjoinder of offenses to charge in an indictment the keeping and maintaining a gaming house and playing cards for money.\n2. INDICTMENT \u2014 Quashal\u2014Gaming.\nIn an indictment for keeping a common gaming house the use of the word \u201cgaming\u201d is sufficient.\n3. WITNESSES \u2014 Competency \u2014 Gaming \u2014 Constitutional Law \u2014 The Code, seo. 1215.\nIn a prosecution for gaming a witness may be compelled to testify although his answer tends to criminate him, he being pardoned for the offense under The Code, sec. 1215.\n4. WITNESSES \u2014 Gaming.\nThe privilege of refusing to answer an incriminating question is personal to the witness, and can be claimed by him only.\nINDICTMENT against G. T. Morgan, beard by Judge G. 8. Ferguson and a jury, at September Term, 1903, of tbe Superior Court of Wilson County. From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon the defendant appealed.\nRobert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0743-01", "first_page_order": 781, "last_page_order": 784 }