Morris v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1909 |
| Citation | 121 S.W. 1112 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; Chas. A. Wilcox, Judge.
Lee Morris was convicted of gaming, and appeals. Affirmed.
A. W. Bloor, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges that appellant "did then and there unlawfully keep and exhibit, for the purpose of gaming, a gaming table and bank." Appellant moves in arrest of judgment, because the indictment is duplicitous, in that it charges appellant with keeping and exhibiting a gaming table for the purpose of gaming, and that it charges him with keeping and exhibiting a bank for the purpose of gaming. This form of indictment has been sustained, as being not subject to this criticism, by the decisions. See Tellison v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 389, 33 S. W. 1082; Parker v. State, 13 Tex. App. 213; Campbell v. State, 2 Tex. App. 187. And it is the same form of indictment found in Pruitt v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 109 S. W. 171. We are of opinion that the indictment is not duplicitous, nor subject to criticism.
Appellant asked a special instruction to the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, on the ground the evidence is not sufficient. This was refused by the court, and correctly. The evidence, in substance, is that appellant exhibited a game of monte at what is known as "Brock's Club"—that is, the club over Brock's saloon, in what is called the "First Ward." The testimony for the state shows that money was bet at this banking game. This was denied by appellant. There was quite a lot of testimony pro and con in regard to it; the issue being sharply drawn that appellant did exhibit and deal monte, and that there was betting at the game.
It is contended that the court erred in not defining what is a banking game. We are of opinion this was not necessary, where the banking game is one enumerated and designated as such by the statute. Pruitt v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 109 S. W. 171. The statute expressly defines monte as a banking game.
It is also contended that the court erred in not instructing the jury that the banking of, or dealing, a game of monte at a place not usually resorted to for gaming, is not a felony under article 388a of the Penal Code of 1895 (Acts 30th Leg. 1907, p. 108, c. 49). We do not think there is any merit in this contention. Article 388a makes it a penitentiary offense to exhibit, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odle v. State, 20955.
...358, 57 S.W. 850; Holman v. State [Tex.Cr.App.] 90 S.W. 174; Reum v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. [125] 128, 90 S.W. 1109; Morris v. State, 57 Tex. Cr.R. 163, 121 S.W. 1112; Cabiness v. State 146 S.W. 934; Stevens v. State 150 S.W. 944; Walker v. State, 151 S.W. 318; Goodwin v. State 158 S.W. 274; S......
-
Johnson v. State
...30 Tex. App. 374, 17 S. W. 934; Holman v. State, 90 S. W. 174; Prendergast v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 358, 57 S. W. 850; Morris v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 163, 121 S. W. 1112, and cases The facts in this case would authorize a jury to find that appellant approached Horace Griffin, who was in La......
-
Stevens v. State
...the same extent, they are not distinct offenses and may be charged conjunctively in the same count in the indictment. Morris v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 163, 121 S. W. 1112; Moore v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 552, 40 S. W. 287; Medina v. State, 49 S. W. 380; Reum v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 128, 90 S......
-
Robertus v. State
...Branch's Penal Code, § 508; also Reum v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 225, 206 S. W. 523; Copping v. State, 7 Tex. App. 61; Morris v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 163, 121 S. W. 1112; Cabiness v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 409, 146 S. W. 934; Stevens v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 282, 150 S. W. 944; Goodwin v. Sta......