
    M. C. Sharkey v. The State of Mississippi.
    Criminal law : betting on elections. — It is an indictable offence, under tbe statute to suppress gaming, to bet, or wager money, in tbis State, upon tbe result of an election held in another State.
    In error to the Circuit Court of Attala county. Hon. E. Gr. Henry, judge.
    The plaintiff in error was indicted in the Circuit Court of Attala, for betting, with one Matthews, on the result of the election for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, held in the State of Kentucky, in November, A.D. 1856.
    The defendant demurred to the indictment, and his demurrer being overruled, he excepted, and sited out this writ of error.
    
      J. A. P. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
    
      The demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained.
    It is not a violation' of the statute of this State against gaming, to bet on the result of an election to be held in another State. The charge in the indictment was, that appellant bet on the result of the Presidential election in Kentucky. Our statute declares' its penalty against betting on games of “ hazard or address,” or upon “any cock-fight, duel, or the result of any election.”, This means, upon any election to be held in Mississippi, and the words “ any election, of any kind whatever,” are intended to embrace all elections which may be held m this State. Hutch. Code, 951. The charge here was not for betting on the general result of the Presidential election, which would have embraced Mississippi, but on the result in another State. It is not to be' considered that Mississippi has assumed to be the keeper of the morals of Kentucky, or to declare what shall be against public policy as to the affairs of that State.
    In Delaware, it has been' held to be no violation of her statute against gaming, to bet there on a horse-race to take place outside of Delaware. 4 Harring. 308.
    The Delaware statute proscribes horse-racing; and yet she delicately declines to punish her citizens for betting on a race to be run out of her limits. I would commend her example to our own State.
    Alabama has a statute just like ours, and her Supreme Court has decided, that it is not a violation of her law to bet there on an election which has been consummated, though the result is unknown at the time of the bet. 2 Ala. 340.
    It is plain from the language of our statute, in. its specific enumeration of “games of hazard or address, cock-fights or duels,” that the object of the statute is to discourage and put down, not betting, but the “ games”' and practices which induce betting.
    
    The object in punishing betting on “ elections,” is the desire to preserve the purity of the ballot-box. It being supposed that the practice is, as the Supreme Court of Alabama says, “well calculated to affect the purity of. the elective franchise.” Mississippi has no right to attempt the protection of the “ elective franchise” in Kentucky, or to take into consideration what is likely to affect it. I beg a careful attention to the Alabama decisions above referred to.
    
      D. Q. Crlenn, attorney-general, for the State,
    argued the cause orally.
   Handy, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an indictment for betting money in this State upon the result of the last Presidential election, held in the State of Kentucky.

The objection to the indictment is, that the offence charged, is not within the mischief intended to be prohibited by the statute upon which it was founded; that the statute intended to suppress the practice of betting upon elections to be held in this State, the tendency of which was to produce undue excitement amongst our citizens, and improper interference with the elective franchise.

But this, though it may have been an evil intended to be prevented, is manifestly not the primary object of the statute. The statute was passed “to discourage and suppress gaming,” and its provisions are directed against gaming, or wagering, or betting money, in various forms, and amongst others, “ upon the result of any election, of any kind whatever.” It is therefore the betting money in this State which was intended to be punished, though the subject-matter of the bet might not be within the limits of the State.

Upon this view, the judgment of the court below sustained the indictment; and it must be affirmed.  