Richards v. State

Criminal Procedure. Gambling. Indictment, joint. If an indictment charge two or more persons with the commission-of an offense, it is joint, although it omits the words “with ” or- “ together with.” Strawhern v. State, 37 Miss., 422, criticized.

From circuit court of Yalobusha county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Winfred Richards was convicted of gambling, and appeals. Appellant and one Edward Wilbourn were indicted in the same indictment, which charged that “Winfred Richards and Edward Wilbourn did . . . unlawfully play at a certain game and games of dice, commonly -called ‘ craps, ’ for money, ’ ’ etc. This indictment was demurred to by appellant as being an indictment for separate offenses in which two were joined. The demurrer was overruled by the court below, and at the trial defendant was convicted. The indictment in this case charged that “Winfred Richards and Edward Wilbourn did unlawfully play at a certain game or games of dice for money,” etc. This was an indictment against each of them for a separate offense. They should not have been joined in the same indictment. If so joined, the indictment should have charged that they played with each other or together. Lea v. State, 64 Miss., 294; Ball v. State, 67 Miss., 358; Elliott v. State, 26 Ala., 78. The indictment is sufficient under § 1361 of the code of 1892. The statute expressly states that the indictment shall be held sufficient without setting forth or describing with or against whom the accused may have bet or played. I call the court’s attention to §1133 of the code of 1892, which is as follows: “1133 (2856). The same; laws remedial; not penal.—All laws made or to be made for the suppression of gambling or gaming are remedial, and not penal statutes, and shall be so construed by the courts.” The statutes against gambling are remedial, and not penal, and hence are not to be strictly construed. Seal v. State, 13 Smed. & M., 286; Gain v. State, 13 Smed. & M., 456.