
    Sharkey v. State,
    33 Miss. R., 353.
    Gaming.
    Betting money in this state is indictable, no matter if tbe subject-matter of the bet: might not be within the state.
    Error to Attala circuit court. Henry, J.
    M. 0. Sharkey was indicted in the circuit court of Attala, for betting with one Matthews on the result of the election for electors for President and Yiee-President of the Hnitéd States, held in the state of Kentucky, in November, 1856.
    The defendant demurred to the indictment, and his demurrer being overruled, he excepted, and sued out this writ of error.
    
      J. A. P. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
    It is not a violation of the statute to bet on the result of an election to be held in another state. The act was intended to embrace all elections which may be held in this state. Hutch. Code, 951.
    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 Harr. 308.
    Alabama has a statute similar to ours, and her supreme court has decided, that it was 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.
    
      D. C. Glenn, attorney general, argued the case orally..
   Handy, J.:

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 offense charged is not within the mischief intended to be prohibited by the statute upon which it is 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 onr 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 bettvng 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.  