State v. Martin
State v. Martin.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.
“ In a complaint or indictment in any case arising under the preceding sections,a lottery maybe described as a pretended lottery, which shall be sufficient, whatever the proof may be; and it shall not be necessary to-allege or prove, upon trial, who is the owner of the property, nor who manages, conducts, or draws the lottery, or participates therein.” P. S., c.
270, s.
4. The game of policy being a lottery, the indictment sets forth all that is required under the statute. It charges the defendant with an offence in the words of the statute, and describes to him the particular kind of a lottery he is charged with making and putting up.
State v. Follet, 6 N. H. 58;
State v. Clarke, 33 N. H. 329;
State v. Moore, 63 N. H. 9;
Commonwealth v. Wright, 137 Mass. 250 ;
Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 146 Mass. 142 .
.Motion denied.
All concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.