Hankins v. State
| Decision Date | 11 February 1903 |
| Citation | 72 S.W. 191 |
| Parties | HANKINS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Somervell county court; J. G. Adams, Judge.
John Hankins was convicted of gaming, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Jno J. Hiner, J. E. Pearce, and E. P. Lea, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of gaming, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $10.
Appellant made a motion to quash the information on the ground that the same does not designate or describe any particular place. The information in this respect is as follows: That "John Hankins did then and there unlawfully play at a game with cards, the said game of cards then and there not being played by the said John Hankins at a private residence occupied by a family." Under the former decisions of this court, as the statute stood prior to the amendment of article 379, Pen. Code (see Acts 27th Leg. p. 26), it was necessary, where the playing was at a house other than those set out in said article, or at a place other than those named, to designate the house or place, and describe it so as to constitute the same a public house or a public place. It will be noticed that article 379, before its amendment, made the playing of cards at certain named public houses, or in any other public house than those named, or in certain named public places, or any other public place than those named, an offense. So it will be seen that the house or place where the game was inhibited had to be a public house or a public place. Consequently it had to be set out and described to make it such. See White's Ann. Pen. Code, §§ 620, 630; Crutcher v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 233, 45 S. W. 594. In that case the playing was in a pasture. as in the case at bar; but in that case it was held, under the statute as it then existed, that the place must be set out and described in order to show that it was a public place, which was the requirement of the statute at that time. In Green v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 61 S. W. 481, the playing was at an old mill, and at night. It was there said that a flouring mill is not one of the houses specially denominated by the statute as a public house or place; that it may be private at times and public at other times; but under the testimony, which there showed that the playing was at night, and the mill was not in use, that it was not a public place. But, as stated, in 1901 the 27th Legislature amended article 379, and, after enumerating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowery v. State
...444, 72 S. W. 179, Wilkerson v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 455, 72 S. W. 850, Osborne v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 557, 61 S. W. 491, and Hankins v. State, 72 S. W. 191. There are also many other decisions of this court to the same effect cited by Judge Harper in said Slack Case, and also in said Br......
-
Newman v. State
...v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 444, 72 S. W. 179; Wilkerson v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 456, 72 S. W. 850; Osborn v. State, 72 S. W. 592; Hankins v. State, 72 S. W. 191. The other matters raised in the motion were thoroughly considered on the original appeal, and need not be further Believing that t......
-
Gallegos v. State
...179; Hipp v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 75 S. W. 28, 62 L. R. A. 973; Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 87 S. W. 1155; Hankins v. State, 72 S. W. 191, 6 Tex. Ct. Rep. 790. We believe, on a careful examination of the question here made by appellant, that his contention is the law. Amended ar......
-
Osborn v. State
...indictment should have been sustained. For a discussion of the last act of the Legislature, see Hodges v. State, 72 S. W. 179, Hankins v. State, 72 S. W. 191, and Wilkerson v. State, 72 S. W. 850 (decided at the present The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed. ...