State v. Hayden
The State, in Error v. Hayden, in Error
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
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Napton, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an indictment charging the defendant in the betting one dollar “ upon a certain gambling device, commonly called a horse race.”
The sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth sections of the eighth article of our act concerning crimes and punishments contain the provisions under which this indictment was drawn, and by which it must be sustained, if it can be sustained at all. These sections prohibit setting up or keeping certain gambling devices described, some of which are enu *36 merated — as “ A. B. C., faro bank, equality,” &c. — and prohibit betting upon them and upon games played at or by means of these devices. It is a great perversion of language to call a horse race a gambling device. If the legislature desire to prohibit horse races it is easy for them to say so in plain terms. No one would even suppose that penalties inflicted upon keepers of faro banks, and tables, and such like gaming devices, were intended to apply to horse races, or foot races, or boat races. A criminal code can not be so loosely interpreted. Besides, there are provisions against horse racing on Sunday (§ 35), and in public roads and highways, (§ 54 and 55,) which show that the attention of the legislature was directed to the subject.
The decision of this court in the case of Shropshire v. Glascock Garner, 4 Mo. 536 , that horse racing was a game within the meaning of our statute concerning gaming, is not applicable.
Judgment reversed.
The other judges concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.