Source: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Date: 1836-03-01
Jurisdiction: United States
Citation: 25 F. Cas. 623 · 4 Cranch, C. C. 707
Opinion
THE COURT (nem eon.) quashed the indictment, being of opinion that the indictment must charge the offence either to be the keeping of a common gaming-table, or must positively charge it to be the keeping of a faro-bank, not merely a gaming-table called a faro-bank. THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, suggested that it would be better to charge it as the keeping of a faro-bank, the same being a common gaming-table. In a subsequent case against HeCormiek, at this term, for keeping “a certain public gaming-table called a faro-bank,” the indictment was quashed, on the authority of Cooly’s Case. [See Case No. 17,226.]