Singleton v. State

• Decision Date: 06 June 1908
• Citation: 111 S.W. 736
• Parties: SINGLETON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

111 S.W. 736

SINGLETON v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1908.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1908.

Appeal from Hamilton County Court; A. E. Scott, Judge.

Dick Singleton was convicted of betting at cards, and appeals. Affirmed.

A. R. Eidson, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

RAMSEY, J.

The appellant was charged by indictment with betting at a game of cards. His trial before a jury in the county court of Hamilton county resulted in a conviction, on which judgment was accordingly entered. He has appealed to this court, and relies for a reversal on practically two questions. The evidence is undisputed, and shows beyond doubt or controversy that appellant and other persons played at cards at a private residence occupied by a family, at which all the parties, including himself, wagered money. It was undisputed that the house in which the game was played was a private residence occupied by a family, and was not at that time, nor had it been, commonly resorted to for the purpose of gaming. The questions relied upon for reversal are thus clearly and succinctly stated in the brief of appellant. It is contended, first, "if it is attempted by the act of the Thirtieth Legislature to make the acts of the appellant in this case an offense, then the provision of said act is inoperative and void, because not expressed in the title of the act as required by the Constitution of this state (article 3, § 35)." The other proposition is that it is no offense in this state to play cards at a private residence occupied by a family, when said private house is not resorted to for the purpose of gaming, even though the participants in the game bet or wager thereon.

1. In the recent case of Joliff v. State, 109 S. W. 176, we had occasion to discuss article 3 of section 35 of our Constitution. We there reached the conclusion, as well stated by Mr. Sutherland in his work on Statutory Construction (section 96), that "a subject expressed in the title includes all subsidiary details which are means for carrying into effect the object or purpose of the act disclosed in the subject." That well-known law writer clearly states the rule (section 85) as follows: "Whatever may be the scope of an act, it can embrace but one subject, and all its provisions must relate to that subject. They must be parts of it, incident to it, or in some reasonable sense auxiliary to the object in view. That subject must be expressed in the title of the act. The constitutional requirement is addressed to the subject, not to the details, of the act. The subject may be single. The provisions to accomplish the object involved in that subject may be multifarious." The caption of the act in question (Acts 30th Leg. [Laws 1907, p. 107]) c. 49, purports to be "An act to amend article 388 of the Penal Code of the state of Texas," etc., and contains this general clause, "and generally to suppress gambling, repealing all laws in conflict herewith and declaring an emergency." While the body of the caption does not in precise terms make it an offense to wager money at cards, the other clauses of the caption are...