Hipp v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1903 |
| Citation | 75 S.W. 28 |
| Parties | HIPP v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Coleman County Court; B. F. Rose, Judge.
Hugh Hipp was convicted of gaming, and he appeals. Reversed.
Woodward & Baker, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged with playing cards in a certain named pasture, and on his trial was convicted and fined $10. The indictment is sufficient. Russell v. State (Cr. App.) 72 S. W. 190, 6 Tex. Ct. Rep. 784; Hankins v. State (Cr. App.) 72 S. W. 191, 6 Tex. Ct. Rep. 790.
Articles 379 and 381, Acts 1901, p. 26, punish all character of gaming "at any place except a private residence occupied by a family." Article 381 provides that it is not necessary to prove betting occurred upon any of these games where the card playing occurred at a house for retailing spirituous liquors, etc., or in any street, highway, or other public place, or in any outhouse where people resort, or at any place except a private residence occupied by a family; "provided that nothing in this title shall be so construed as to prevent the playing of any game for amusement at a private residence occupied by a family." Card playing at a private residence would not be a violation of the law, unless such residence is commonly resorted to for the purpose of gaming. Article 379, supra. It is contended the place where the card playing occurred, and which forms the basis of this conviction, was a private residence of a family within the meaning of the statutes above cited. On this phase of the case Scoggins, at whose camp the card playing occurred, testified: That he lived in the tent or under the wagon sheet, and this residence was thus constructed: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holbrook
...fact being that the game was played in a tent owned by a saloon keeper and occupied by an employé as a sleeping place. Hipp v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 75 S.W. 28, 62 R. A. 973, was another gambling case, apparently under the same statute. The card playing was done in a tent formed by a w......
-
Chapin v. State
...appellant's abode was a tent, but was none the less a private dwelling. Penal Code 1925, arts. 1391 and 1395; Hipp v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 75 S. W. 28, 62 L. R. A. 973; Hooper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 105 S. W. 816; Favro v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 452, 46 S. W. 932, 73 Am. St. Rep. The......
-
Luttrell v. State
...law is discussed in Fondren v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 660, 179 S. W. 1170. Decisions under it will be found in Hipp v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 75 S. W. 28, 62 L. R. A. 973; Patterson v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 393, 116 S. W. 1151; Robbins v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 8, 121 S. W. 504. The Hoope......
-
Purvis v. State
...by evidence of the playing of a single game, and where there was no other evidence that the place was public. In Hipp v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 75 S. W. 28, 62 L. R. A. 973, and Spencer v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 383, 92 S. W. 847, it was held that card playing at a private residence is n......