Meeks v. State
| Decision Date | 15 April 1903 |
| Citation | 74 S.W. 910 |
| Parties | MEEKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Bell County Court; G. M. Felts, Judge.
R. L. Meeks was convicted of gaming, and appeals. Affirmed.
J. B. McMahon and Winbourn Pearce, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of gaming, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25, and 10 days' confinement in the county jail.
The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal for want of a sufficient recognizance, in that it fails to state that appellant has been convicted in this case, the expression "in this case" being omitted; and, further, that it fails to require his presence before the trial court from day to day and from term to term of the same, the expression "of the same" also being omitted. There are no similar terms to those omitted contained in the recognizance. The Legislature has deemed it proper to make these necessary portions of the recognizance, having prescribed the same by form. We are of opinion the motion is well taken. The appeal is dismissed.
On Rehearing.
(May 6, 1903.)
Upon motion for rehearing it is made to appear that the recognizance heretofore held to be vicious was incorrectly transcribed, and it is now made to appear that it is in compliance with the statute. The motion for rehearing is granted, and the cause reinstated.
There is practically but one question in this case, to wit, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, which was for exhibiting a gaming table and bank, commonly called a "slot machine," for the purpose of gaming. It was agreed in the statement of facts that appellant was the keeper and proprietor of a saloon in Belton, known as the "Turf Saloon," in which he kept a slot machine, standing near the bar. This machine was so constructed that when a nickel or trade check was placed in the slot, and the lever pulled down and turned loose, a cylinder in the interior would revolve, and after several revolutions would stop, leaving the faces of five ordinary playing cards exposed to view on the face of the machine. An entire deck of such cards was so placed upon the cylinder, and the machine was so constructed that different cards would turn on the face of the machine after each play, about the same as if the deck of cards had been shuffled and dealt. Defendant had many trade checks, made of some hard metal, about the size of nickels, which would play in the machine as a nickel would, and which had engraved upon them the name of the saloon, etc., and were each good for 10 cents in trade on the saloon. A great many people played or bet at this machine. There was a card attached to the machine showing which cards would win, such cards winning in proportion to their value, as in poker games. Each pair would get one 10-cent cigar; "threes" would get three 10-cent cigars, etc.; and a "royal flush" would win a hundred 10-cent cigars. There was also printed on this card, attached to the machine, the statement: "Every five...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salt Lake City v. Doran
... ... within the class of lotteries or gift enterprises that the ... law prohibits as criminal. (Buckalew v. State, 62 ... Ala. 334, 34 Am. Rep. 22; State v. Bryant, 74 N.C ... 207; Commonwealth v. Wright, 137 Mass. 250, 50 Am ... Rep. 306; State v. Clarke, ... 112 Ga. 20, 51 L. R. A. 496; Lytle v. State, 100 ... S.W. 1160 (Tex.) ; State v. Vasquez, 49 Fla. 126; ... Loiseau v. State, 114 Ala. 34; Meeks v. State, 74 ... S.W. 910 (Tex.) .) ... To the ... effect that slot machines are obnoxious to laws and ... ordinances against the ... ...
-
Cassens v. State
...of a misdemeanor." The substitution of "in this court" for the language "in this cause" vitiates the recognizance. Meeks v. State, 74 S. W. 910, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 824; Heinen v. State, 74 S. W. 776, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 921; Armstrong v. State, 77 S. W. 446, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. The appeal is according......
-
Lytle v. State
...kind of machine used in the game for which appellant was prosecuted. This court has so expressly decided in the case of Meeks v. State, 74 S. W. 910, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 824, and Christopher v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 235, 53 S. W. 852. See, also, Donathan v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 427, 66 S. W. F......
-
Territory v. Jones.
...of the laws of the state of Texas, although that law was passed previous to the invention of slot machines. In the case of Meeks v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 74 S. W. 910, the Texas courts again held that a slot machine, constructed somewhat differently from that described in the case of Christ......