Comer v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1888 |
| Parties | COMER <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from county court, Cherokee county; M. J. WHITMAN, Judge.
Defendant, J. W. Comer, appeals from a judgment of conviction of the offense of gaming.
J. M. Duncan, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
It was charged on the indictment that the unlawful playing at a game with cards was at a "tavern and inn," and again that it was done "in a room in and attached to said tavern and inn;" the conjunctive "and" being used to connect the two offenses. If several offenses are embraced in the same general definition, and are punishable in the same manner, they are not distinct offenses, and may be charged conjunctively in the same count. Willson, Crim. St. § 1989. This indictment was neither uncertain nor duplicitous, and is in all respects sufficient.
Our statute expressly prohibits playing cards in a public place, and expressly names taverns and inns as public houses which come within the inhibition. Pen. Code, art. 355. But it is provided by article 356 of the Penal Code that "a private room in an inn or tavern is not within the meaning of public places, unless such room is commonly used for gaming."
It is abundantly established in this case that the playing was done in an inn or tavern, but the contention is that it was done in a "private room," and that the private room in which it took place was not "commonly used for gaming," and that consequently no offense was committed. We may concede that the prosecution failed to show that the room was commonly used for gaming. The evidence was that the card-playing was in bedrooms — guest-rooms — in the tavern or inn. Defendant, and others with him, would go, with permission of the proprietor, into such rooms, when not occupied by guests, close the door of the room, and the general public were not thereafter admitted, and only those engaged in the game occupied the room for the time the game lasted. The parties so using the room for a game paid the clerk of the house for the use of the room.
Mr. Bishop says: "An inn, tavern, or hotel is a place for the general entertainment of all travelers and strangers who apply, paying suitable compensation." Bish. St. Cr. (2d Ed.) § 297. Mr. Webster defines "inn" as "a place of shelter; habitation; residence; abode; a house for the lodging and entertainment of travelers; a tavern." He defines "tavern" as a "public house, where entertainment and accommodation for travelers and other guests are provided." In his definition of the word "guest," in so far as applicable to this case, it is "a lodger at a hotel," and a "lodger" is defined to be "one who lives at board or in a hired room." "Lodging" is "a place of rest for a night, or a residence for a time, — a temporary habitation."
To make a guest-room in a hotel — that is, one appropriated to public use as such — a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steinke, In re
...(Thrasher v. State, 168 Ala. 130, 53 So. 256, 258--259; private room in a hotel used for gambling (Comer v. State, 26 Tex.App. 509, 10 S.W. 106, 107--108; mercantile establishment (State v. Fenner, 263 N.C. 694, 140 S.E.2d 349, 7 In State v. Boles, 5 Conn.Cir. 22, 240 A.2d 920, the reviewin......
-
Goodwin v. State
...State, 14 Tex. App. 26; Nicholas v. State, 23 Tex. App. 317, 5 S. W. 239; Davis v. State, 23 Tex. App. 637, 5 S. W. 149; Comer v. State, 26 Tex. App. 509, 10 S. W. 106; Howell v. State, 29 Tex. App. 592, 16 S. W. 533; Laroe v. State, 30 Tex. App. 374, 17 S. W. 934; Willis v. State, 34 Tex. ......
-
Odle v. State, 20955.
... ... Copping v. State, 7 Tex.App. 61; Gage v. State, 9 Tex.App. 259; Day v. State, 14 Tex.App. [26] 30; Nicholas v. State, 23 Tex.App. [317] 326, 5 S.W. 239; Comer v. State, 26 Tex.App. [509] 512, 10 S.W. 106; Howell v. State, 29 Tex.App. 592, 16 S.W. 533; Laroe v. State, 30 Tex.App. 374, 17 S.W. 934; Willis v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. [148] 149, 29 S.W. 787; Tellison v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 388, 33 S.W. 1062; Moore v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 552, 40 S.W. 287; Brown v ... ...
-
Herrington v. State
...State, 14 Tex. App. 26; Nicholas v. State, 23 Tex. App. 317, 5 S. W. 239; Davis v. State, 23 Tex. App. 637, 5 S. W. 149; Comer v. State, 26 Tex. App. 509, 10 S. W. 106; Howell v. State, 29 Tex. App. 592, 16 S. W. 533; Laroe v. State, 30 Tex. App. 374, 17 S. W. 934; Willis v. State, 34 Tex. ......