[Return to Alabama Supreme Court Cases]Genealogical Gleanings FromReports of Cases Determined in theSupreme Court of Alabama, 1820-1826Jordan assigned here as error the judgment of the Circuit Court on the demurrer to his last plea. J. M. Taylor, for plaintiff in error. . . F. Jones and W. B. Martin, for defendant in error, relied on the same authorities; and contended, that as whether there was gaming and betting or not was a question of law; the plea should have disclosed the facts, so that the court might have determined whether they came within the legal acceptation of gaming. GAYLE, J.Had the statute been confined to any particular species of gaming or betting, it would have been necessary that the plea should have described the game, and such a game as it within its provisions. But the statute, in express terms, includes every game and every wager or betting whatsoever, at which money or anything of value can be lost and won; it was therefore unnecessary to state in the plea the kind of game at which the money was lost and won. The plea sufficiently states facts, which, if true, render the note void in law; and in the usual form of such pleas avers it is so void, it is not argumentative. Let the judgment be reversed. Source: Henry Minor, Reporter, Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama From May, 1820, to July, 1826 (Atlanta: 1891), p. 255. |
GenealogyMagazine.com - Copyright © 2000-2012 Datatrace Systems |