
    Commonwealth versus Asa Arnold.
    
      Oct. 27th.
    
    
      Oct. 28th.
    
    Cndictment on St* 1798, c. 20, alleges that the defendant, st being an innholder duly licensed,” permitted persons 66 to play at the game of cards in his said dwelling-house where he was then and there licensed as an innholder.” Held sufficient, this being equivalent to an allegation that he was in the actual employment of an innholder, and the words 66 the game of” being surplusage.
    This was an indictment (on St. 1798, c. 20), alleging that Asa Arnold of Norton &c., innholder, on &c., he then and there being an innholder in said town of Norton duly and legally licensed,” permitted divers persons 66 to gamble and play at the game of cards in his said dwellinghouse in Norton aforesaid, where he was then and there licensed as an inn-holder.”
    The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, 1. because it is not alleged in the indictment that the defendant, at the time when the offence is stated to have been committed, was exercising the employment of an innholder; and 2. because it is not alleged that he permitted cards or any other unlawful game to be played, &e.
    
      W. B ay lies.j in support of the motion,
    contended that the indictment should allege that the defendant was in the actual occupation of an innholder; whereas the words here used merely amount to an allegation that he was licensed as an inn-holder. Commonwealth v. Bolkom, 3 Pick. 281.
    He objected also to the phrase, <c at the game of cards,” there being many games of cards. Had the terms “ at cards” been employed, the indictment might have been sufficient, within the case just cited.
    Morion, Attorney General, for the commonwealth,
    cited on the first point, Hawk. bk. 2, c. 32, § 61 ; Stark. Cr. Pl. 151.
   Per Curiam.

The indictment is good. It states that the defendant was in the actual employment of an innholder.

The statute makes it unlawful to permit playing cc at cards,” and the words (< the game of” maybe struck out as surplusage. 
      
       See 1 Chitty’a Crim. Law, (3d Amer. ed.) 294,295, notes.
     