
    The State v. James A. Crowder.
    1. An "indictment- ■which charges that the defendant knowingly kept a house to be used and occupied for gambling sufficiently describes a misdemeanor under Article 2034, Paschal’s Digest.
    :2. The words “gambling” and “gaming” must be regarded equivalent in their meaning, under Article 2034, Paschal’s Digest, which declares that any act that would be deemed a nuisance at common law may be punished as a misdemeanor.
    Appeal from Hopkins. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Andrews.
    The indictment charged that James A. Crowder “unlawfully and knowingly kept a. house to be used and oc- • cupied for gambling.” Crowder excepted to the indictment, on the ground that it charged no offense known to -the law, which was sustained, and the State-appealed.
    
      Browne, for appellant,
    insisted that the indictment was good, because the keeping of a gaming house was an of:f ense at common law punishable as a nuisance, and what•ever was deemed to be a nuisance at common law is punishable under our statute as a misdemeanor, citing :Russell on Crimes, Vol. 1, p. 323; 3 Denio, 101; Paschal’s Digest, Art. 2034.
   Walker, J.

The sufficiency of the indictment in this •case depends upon whether the word gambling may be substituted for the word gaming, as adjectives qualifying-the noun “house.” We think the words are equivalent in this sense, under Article 2034, Paschal’s Digest, which declares that any thing or act that would be deemed a nuisance at common law shall be indictable as a misdemeanor under the statute. This indictment is good, and the court erred in quashing it.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  