Hooper v. State
| Decision Date | 20 November 1907 |
| Citation | 105 S.W. 816 |
| Parties | HOOPER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Leon County Court; Robt. J. Thorne, Judge.
A. G. Hooper was convicted of gambling, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Wm. Watson and J. M. Chatham, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant's conviction was for gaming. The game was dice, alleged to have been played at a place not a private residence. The proof shows that it was at a tent 10 or 15 steps from a place occupied as a saloon by one of the witnesses. The tent was the property of the saloon keeper, but was occupied by an employé. The employé slept there, and no one else used or occupied the tent, and it was used only for that purpose.
It is stated that the public could go in and out of the tent, but there is no testimony showing that it was in fact a public place, further than that during the day people around and about the saloon could enter the tent. We are of opinion, under the authorities of this state, that this was a private residence. See Hipp v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 75 S. W. 28, Stewart v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 33, 28 S. W. 806, Gomprecht v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 435, 37 S. W. 734, and Allphin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 29 S. W. 159.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State
...96 S. W. 1085; Williams v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 325, 87 S. W. 1155; Marks v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 218, 101 S. W. 805; Hopper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 105 S. W. 816; Handy v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 406, 80 S. W. 526; Reyes v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 420, 102 S. W. 421; Mays v. State, 50 Tex. ......
-
State v. Holbrook
......They ate and slept there while in. charge of their flock, and they would have a right to defend. that habitation under the statute from which the excerpt was. taken, [98 Or. 75] whether it was a mere tent or a more. pretentious abode. In Hooper v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 105 S.W. 816, the court held that a tent was a. private residence, within the meaning of a statute against. gambling "not in a private residence"; the fact. being that the game was played in a tent owned by a saloon. keeper and occupied by an ......
-
Chapin v. State
...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 state relies upon the testimony of the officers showi......
-
Luttrell v. State
...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 Hooper Case (Tex. Cr. App.) 105 S. W. 816, which is cited, was a conviction for betting at dice under the statute which does not refer to the proposition of the private ......