All Texas Racing Ass'n v. State
Decision Date | 10 April 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 9733.,9733. |
Citation | 82 S.W.2d 151 |
Parties | ALL TEXAS RACING ASS'N et al. v. STATE, by SHOOK, Crim. Dist. Atty. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; S. G. Tayloe, Judge.
Suit by the State, by John R. Shook, criminal district attorney of Bexar county, against the All Texas Racing Association and others. From a judgment granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal.
Judgment reversed, injunction dissolved, and cause remanded.
Conger, Low & Spears, of San Antonio, for appellants.
John R. Shook and W. C. Linden, both of San Antonio, for appellee.
This is an appeal by All Texas Racing Association, a corporation, and others, defendants below, from a temporary injunction granted at the suit of the state of Texas upon the relation of John R. Shook, criminal district attorney of Bexar county, Tex., plaintiff below, restraining and enjoining them from operating a pari-mutuel system of betting on the results of dog races run on certain premises located in Bexar county.
The questions presented on this appeal are: (1) Whether it is an offense under any provision of the Penal Code of Texas for one to keep a place where dog races are run and betting upon the results of such races is carried on under the pari-mutuel system; and (2) whether the operation of a place where dog races are run and betting upon the results thereof is permitted under the pari-mutuel system is subject to be enjoined as a nuisance under the provisions of articles 4664-4667, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas (1925).
Appellants were engaged in operating a race track upon which dogs were run and in conducting a pari-mutuel system of betting upon the results of such dog races. The place was located outside the city limits of the city of San Antonio. Numerous persons visited the place for the purpose of observing the dog races and betting on the results of the races. Special officers were in attendance to preserve the peace. No disorderly conduct or breach of the peace occurred at any time. The system of betting in vogue, described as the pari-mutuel system, was such that each person desiring to place a bet on the outcome of a dog race would purchase a ticket designating the dog selected by him with the agreement that all money paid in by all participants should be divided pro rata among those holding tickets on the winning dog after first deducting a charge of 10 per cent. of the amount of the ticket for the operators.
Appellants, by their pleadings and testimony, freely admit that the establishment was operated for the purpose of enabling persons to bet and gamble on the results of the dog races.
Article 625 of the Penal Code of Texas (1925) reads, as follows:
Article 4664 Revised Civil Statutes of Texas (1925) reads, as follows:
Article 4667, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas (1925) reads in part as follows:
Other articles of the statute authorize the district attorney to institute suit in the name of the state to abate and enjoin the maintenance of such a nuisance as is described and referred to in the two articles last mentioned.
A brief review of the subject of the penal laws affecting gambling in this state may be helpful by way of preface to a consideration of the question as to whether betting on dog races is now prohibited by any provision of the Penal Code. It was specifically held by the Supreme Court of Texas in Dunman v. Strother, 1 Tex. 89, 46 Am. Dec. 97, that there was no statute then in existence in Texas forbidding wagers on horse races. Likewise, in McElroy v. Carmichael, 6 Tex. 454, it was held that betting on horse races was not unlawful under the act of 1848, which declared that persons betting at any gaming table, bank or banks, "or at any other gambling device" should be guilty of an offense and punished as prescribed. The Supreme Court, holding that a horse race is not a gambling device, there said: In Pierce v. Randolph, 12 Tex. 290, the Supreme Court again held that betting on horse races was not prohibited by law. In that connection, the court added: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Otten v. Town of China Grove
...per se. Horse racing has never been declared a nuisance by the legislature nor is it illegal. All Texas Racing Association v. State, 82 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1935), Aff'd, 128 Tex. 384, 97 S.W.2d 669 Article 1015 § 28 concerns the control of horse racing in the streets ......