Broaddus v. State, 21556.
Decision Date | 23 April 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 21556.,21556. |
Citation | 150 S.W.2d 247 |
Parties | BROADDUS v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Grimes County Court; Gerald Fahey, Judge.
Aubrey Broaddus was convicted of the misdemeanor of permitting the operation of a gaming device upon her premises, and she appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Percy Foreman, of Houston, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for a misdemeanor; punishment being assessed at a fine of $25.
The prosecution proceeded under Article 628, P.C., which reads as follows: "Whoever permits any game prohibited by the preceding articles of this chapter to be played in his house, or a house under his control, or upon his premises, or upon premises under his control, the said house being a public place, or the said premises being appurtenances to a public place, shall be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars."
Article 619, P.C., provides:
Article 620, P.C., reads as follows: "It being intended by the foregoing articles to include every species of gaming device known by the name of table or bank, of every kind whatever, this provision shall be construed to include any and all games which in common language are said to be played, dealt, kept or exhibited."
We quote Article 621, P.C.: "The following games are within the meaning and intention of the two preceding articles, viz.: Faro, monte, vingt et un, rouge et noir, roulette, A.B.C., chuckaluck, keno and rondo; but the enumeration of these games shall not exclude any other properly within the meaning of the two preceding articles."
The proof on the part of the state, as well as that of appellant, was to the effect that appellant permitted a game to be played on her premises which is described in the testimony as follows:
The sheriff of Grimes County testified as follows:
On cross-examination he said: Further, he testified: "No, sir, I never saw anyone bet on any Jumbo Parade game and I never heard of anyone doing it."
In State v. Langford et al., Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 448, 449, the game under consideration, and there declared to be a gaming device, was described as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wiley
... ... 589; ... City of Milwaukee v. Burns, 225 Wis. 296, 274 N.W. 273; State ... v. Langford, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 448; Broaddus v. State, ... 141 Tex. Cr.R. 512, 150 S.W.2d 247; Henry v. Kuney, 280 Mich ... 188, 273 N.W. 442; People v. Gravenhorst, --- Misc. ---, 32 ... ...
-
Pepple v. Headrick
... ... illegal under the gambling statutes of the State of Idaho ... (P. 61, S. L. of 1871; C. 9, Rev. Stat. of 1887; P. 163, S.L ... of 1893; P. 53, ... 364, 13 S.E.2d 630; ... State v. Fuller , 164 Ore. 383, 101 P.2d 1010; ... Broaddus v. State , 141 Tex. Crim. 512, 150 S.W.2d ... 247; Kraus v. City of Cleveland , 135 Ohio St. 43, ... ...
-
MISSISSIPPI GAMING COM'N v. Henson
...32 S.W.2d 161, 162 (1930) ("Anything that contributes to the amusement of the public is a thing of value."); Broaddus v. State, 141 Tex. Crim. 512, 150 S.W.2d 247, 250 (1941)("Free games offered by the machine were things of value."). See also Score Family Fun Ctr., Inc. v. San Diego County......
-
State v. Paul
...free games are things of value; People v. One Pinball Machine, 316 Ill.App. 161, 44 N.E.2d 950 (App.Ct.1942); Broaddus v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 512, 150 S.W.2d 247 (Crim.App.1941); State v. Langford, 144 S.W.2d 448 (Tex.Civ.App.1940); Hightower v. State, 156 S.W.2d 327 We thus see that the c......