Iseley v. State, 8 Blkf. 403; Tate v. Stat daugh v. State, 103 Ind. 78; Jackson v. Persons who are parties to a bet may dition of being exempted from prosecut

5 Blkf. 174; Carr v. State, 50 Ind. 178; Mid4 Ind. 560.

pelled to testify as to the same on conFrazee v. State, 58 Ind. 8.

When the punishment for gaming can not exceed three dollars, justices of the peace have exclusive jurisdiction of the offense. Long v. State, 13 Ind. 566.

2177. (2082.) Betting and pool-selling.-176. Whoever makes any bet or wager, or sells or purchases any pools, on the result of any election held under the laws of this state, or upon the result of any state election, or upon the election of any person to any office, post or situation, or upon the election of President or Vice-President of the United States, or of senators or representatives in congress, or of any elector of President or Vice-President of the United States; or sells or purchases any pools on the result of any horse race or trial of speed between men or animals, or of any game,-shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than five dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than three months nor less than ten days.

An indictment is not bad for alleging that the bet was made the day after the election was held. State v. Little, 6 Blkf. 267.

An indictment charging the winning or losing on an election before the election is held, is bad. State v. Windell, 60 Ind 300.

A conditional contract to pay or not to pay for property, depending on the result of an election, is a wager upon such election. Parsons v. State, 2 Ind. 499; Hizer v. State, 12 Ind. 330; Davis v. Leonard, 69 Ind. 213.

When property is bought under an agreement to pay a certain sum therefor in the event a certain person is elected to an office, the purchaser can not be charged with losing the purchase price of such property. Wagner v. State, 63 Ind. 250.

The offense under this section is complete when the bet or wager is made. Frazee v. State, 58 Ind. 8.

The offering of premiums to the owners of horses whose horse will make the best time in trials for speed, is not illegal. Alvord v. Smith, 63 Ind. 58; Mullen v. Beech Grove Park, 64 Ind. 202.

2178. (2083.) Bunko-steering.-177. Whoever allures, entices, or persuades another to any place upon any pretense, and then, by duress or fraud, compels such person to win or lose or advance or loan money, or execute or give his note or other obligation either for money or any thing of value, or to part with any thing of value upon any game or wager, or by means of any trick, device, or artifice,-is guilty of bunko-steering, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than fourteen years nor less than two years; and all persons present at such place at such time, and engaged therein, shall be prosecuted, tried, and punished for such offense as principals. 2179. (2084.) Keeping room for pool-selling.-178. Any person who shall keep any room or building or any portion of any room or building, or occupy any place or public or private grounds anywhere within the state with apparatus, books, or other device for the purpose of recording or registering bets or wagers or of selling pools; and any person who shall record or register bets or wagers or sells pools upon

the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed, or power of endurance of man or beast; or, being the owner lessee, or occupant of any such rooms, building, part or portion thereof, shall knowingly permit the same to be used or occupied for any of the purposes aforesaid; or shall therein keep, exhibit, or employ any device or apparatus for the purpose of registering or recording such bets or wagers or for the selling of such pools; or shall become the custodian or depository, for hire or reward, of any money, property, or other thing of value staked, wagered, or pledged, as aforesaid, upon any such results,-shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than five hundred dollars nor less than five dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail for not more than six months nor less than ten days.

2180. (2085.) Common gambler.-179. Whoever, for the purpose of gaming with cards or otherwise, travels about from place to place, or frequents any place where gambling is permitted, or engages in gambling for a livelihood, is a common gambler, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than five dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than three months nor less than ten days.

An indictment against a person for frequenting a place where gambling is permitted need not aver the kind of games permitted, nor that the defendant gambled. Howard v. State, 64 Ind. 516.

An indictment that charges a person with being a professional gambler by charging him with frequenting places where gambling is permitted must allege with what purpose he frequented such places. State v. Allen, 69 Ind. 124.

Proof that the accused was once in a gambling house will not sustain a charge of frequenting such place. Green v. State, 109 Ind. 175.

If a professional gambler goes into a county on lawful business, and does not gamble therein, he can not be indicted in such county for being a professional gambler. Bowe v. State, 25 Ind. 415.

Conviction of a person for keeping a gambling house does not prevent his prosecution for being a common gambler, or of frequenting the house kept by himself. De Haven v. State, 2 App. 376.

2181. (2086.) Keeping devices for gaming.-180. Whoever keeps or exhibits for gain, or to win or gain money or other property, any gaming table, Jenny Lind table, roulette, shuffle-board, faro or keno bank, nine-pin or ten-pin alley, wheel of fortune, or any gambling apparatus, device, table or machine of any kind or description, under any denomination or name whatever; or keeps or exhibits any billiard table, bagatelle table, pigeon-hole table, or pool table, for the purpose of betting or gaming; or allows the same to be used for any such purpose, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than twenty-five dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months nor less than thirty days.

An indictment for keeping a gaming apparatus need not allege that any game was played thereon nor state the names of any persons playing on such apparatus. State v. Thomas, 50 Ind. 292.

An indictment for keeping a gaming apparatus must allege that it was kept for the purpose of wagering articles of value thereon. Carr v. State, 50 Ind. 178.

An indictment for exhibiting a gambling device for gain and to win money, need not give the particular name of the device." Pemberton v. State, 85 Ind. 507.

Indictments for keeping and exhibiting gaming devices need not describe the particular place or building where the same is kept, naming the county and state being sufficient. App v. State, 90 Ind. 73; Keith v. State, 90 Ind. 89.

The keeper of any device or apparatus who permits games to be played thereon, and the loser to pay for the use of such device or apparatus, is liable under this section. Blanton v. State, 5 Blkf. 560.

On a charge of keeping or exhibiting a certain kind of device or gaming apparatus, the proof must correspond to the allegation as to the character of the device or apparatus. Sumner v. State, 74 Ind. 52.

Gaming implements seized by officers when making arrests for violation of the gaming laws are subject to the jurisdiction of the court the same as if seized under a search warrant. When such implements are recognized by the law as property they can not be destroyed without the owner having an opportunity to be heard. The order for the destruction of such instruments must be made at or before the rendition of the judgment in the action for violating the gambling laws. State v, Robbins, 124 Ind. 308.

2182. (2087.) Allowing minors to play.-181. If any person owning or having the care, management, or control of any billiard table, pool table, or any kind of gaming table, bagatelle table, or pigeonhole table, shall allow, suffer, or permit any minor to play billiards, bagatelle, pool, or any other game at or upon such table or tables, he shall, upon conviction thereof, for each game so allowed, suffered or permitted to be played, be fined in any sum not more than fifty dollars nor less than five dollars.

See section 2184.

An indictment for allowing minors to play games in violation of this section must charge that a game was played, and name the persons playing, if known. Zook v. State, 47 Ind. 463; Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394; Donninger v. State, 52 Ind. 326.

The indictment must charge that the defendant was either the owner of the table, or that he had the care, management or control thereof. State v. Ward, 57 Ind. 537. Indictments in such cases must show such a state of facts as will make the playing unlawful, or allege that the games were unlawfully allowed to be played. State v. Dupies, 91 Ind. 233.

An indictment charging that more than one game was allowed to be played at the same time is not bad for duplicity. Kiley v. State, 120 Ind. 65.

The indictment must show that the game was played at, or upon, the table described. Donninger v. State, 52 Ind. 326.

It is not necessary that anything should be wagered upon a game in order to make the keeper of a table liable for allowing minors to play games thereon. Ready v. State, 62 Ind. 1.

The proof must correspond with the charge in the indictment as to the kind of table used in playing, and the game played. Bartender v. State, 51 Ind. 73; Squier v. State, 66 Ind. 317.

If it is alleged that a game was played with several persons, proof that but one person played with the minor will not support the charge. Moore v. State, 65 Ind. 213. Persons having the general care of tables are liable under this section, although they may not have had personal control at the time the game was played. Hipes v. State, 73 Ind. 39.

When the defendant claims that the minor was, or had the appearance of being, of full age, the burden is upon him to show the fact. Taylor v. State, 107 Ind. 483.

2183. (2088.) Allowing minors in billiard rooms, etc.-182. If any person owning, or having the care, management, or control of any billiard table or tables, pool table or any kind of gaming table, bagatelle table or pigeon-hole table, kept in any saloon, hotel, or other public place, shall allow, suffer, or permit minors to congregate at, in, or about such place where such billiard table or tables, pool or any kind of gaming table, bagatelle table or pigeon-hole table may be kept, he shall, for each offense, be fined in any sum not more than fifty dollars nor less than five dollars.

This section is constitutional. Manheim v. State, 66 Ind. 65.

An indictment under this section must charge that the defendant was either the owner, or had the care, management or control of the tables. Hanrahan v. State, 57 Ind. 527; Manheim v. State, 66 Ind. 65.

This section only includes places where the tables are kept for the purpose of being played upon, and the use of the words "public billiard hall" in an indictment indicates such a place. Manheim v. State, 66 Ind. 65.

It is necessary that more than one minor shall be at the same time in or about the prohibited places, in order to constitute a violation of this section. Powell v. State, 62 Ind. 531.

2184. (2089.) Private houses excepted.-183. The provisions of the two foregoing sections shall not apply in any case where a billiard table, pool table, bagatelle table, or pigeon-hole table may he kept or used in a private family.

It is not necessary in indictments for allowing minors to play games on gaming tables, or to congregate where the same are kept, to allege that such tables are not kept in private families. Alexander v. State, 48 Ind. 394.

When the indictment does not allege that the table was not kept in a private family, then it should be charged that acts permitted by the minor was unlawfully permitted. State v. Dupies, 91 Ind. 233.

[Acts 1893, p. 21. In force May 18, 1893.]

2185. Giving or selling tobacco to children.-1. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, to give, barter, or sell either directly or indirectly to any child or children under sixteen years tobacco or preparations of tobacco, to be chewed or smoked by said child or children; or to give, barter or sell the same to any person, whomsoever, with knowledge that the same is to be chewed or smoked by any child under the age aforesaid; or to persuade, advise, counsel or compel any child under said age to chew or smoke tobacco.

Any person who violates the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, and be imprisoned in the county jail not less than ten nor more than thirty days.

[1881 S., p. 174. In force September 19, 1881.]

2186. (2090.) Doing business without license.-249. Whoever, by himself or agent, transacts any business or does any act without a

license therefor, when such license is required by any law of this state, shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars nor less than five dollars.

Sale of liquors without license. See section 7284.

Non-residents of this state may be required by law to procure a license to vend foreign merchandise in this state. Beall v. State, 4 Blkf. 107; Sears v. Board, 36 Ind. 267. See McLaughlin v. South Bend, 126 Ind. 471.

Persons who in this state sell goods situate in another state, can not be required by the laws of this state to take out a license to make such sales. McLaughlin v. South Bend, 126 Ind. 471.

Persons engaged in buying and selling stocks, notes, gold and silver on their own account, are not required to take out a license. Henderson v. State, 50 Ind. 234.

The statute requiring physicians to procure a license to practice medicine and surgery, is constitutional. Eastman v. State, 109 Ind. 278.

This section is not applicable to cases where special provision is made for taking out licenses, and fixing a penalty for failing to do so. Keiser v. State, 78 Ind. 430.

2187. (2091.) Found drunk in public.-184. Whoever is found in any public place in a state of intoxication shall be fined in any amount not exceeding five dollars; and, upon a second conviction for such offense, he shall be fined not more than twenty-five dollars; and upon a third conviction for such offense, he shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars, may be imprisoned in the county jail not more than thirty days nor less than five days, and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.

This section is constitutional. Evans v. State, 59 Ind. 563.

An indictment for being found intoxicated in a public place should name the place. State v. Welch, 88 Ind. 308.

If the place is specified as a public street or highway, it is sufficient. State v. Waggoner, 52 Ind. 481; State v. Moriarity, 74 Ind. 103.

Persons found in public places in a state of intoxication are liable to prosecution without regard to the circumstances under which the intoxication occurred. State v. Sevier, 117 Ind. 338.

Being found intoxicated in a private house is not a criminal offense. State v. Sowers, 52 Ind. 311.

2188. (2092.) Selling liquor to drunken man.-185. Whoever sells, barters, or gives away any spirituous, vinous, malt, or other intoxicating liquor to any person at the time in a state of intoxication, knowing him to be in a state of intoxication, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than ten dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year nor less than thirty days, and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.

On a charge of selling liquors to an intoxicated person it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendant knew such person to be intoxicated. Werneke v. State, 50 Ind. 23; Brow v. State, 103 Ind. 133.

In charging a sale under this section it need not be alleged that the quantity sold was less than a quart. Brow v. State, 103 Ind. 133.

To the contrary, see State v. Zeitler, 63 Ind. 441; Buell v. State, 72 Ind. 523.