
    Rockingham,
    June, 1896.
    State v. Martin.
    An indictment charging that the respondent “ did unlawfully make and put up a pretended lottery called policy” sufficiently describes the offence.
    Indictment, charging that the respondent “ did unlawfully make and put up a pretended lottery called policy, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state.” Motion to quash.
    
      
      Louis G. Hoyt, solicitor, for the state.
    
      Calvin Page, for the defendant.
   Clark, J.

“ In a complaint or indictment in any case arising under the preceding sections,a lottery maybe described as a pretended lottery, which shall be sufficient, whatever the proof may be; and it shall not be necessary to-allege or prove, upon trial, who is the owner of the property, nor who manages, conducts, or draws the lottery, or participates therein.” P. S., c. 270, s. 4. The game of policy being a lottery, the indictment sets forth all that is required under the statute. It charges the defendant with an offence in the words of the statute, and describes to him the particular kind of a lottery he is charged with making and putting up. State v. Follet, 6 N. H. 58; State v. Clarke, 33 N. H. 329; State v. Moore, 63 N. H. 9; Commonwealth v. Wright, 137 Mass. 250; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 146 Mass. 142.

.Motion denied.

All concurred.  