Stuart v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1901 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | STUART v. STATE. |
Appeal from Limestone county court; A. J. Harper, Judge.
Arthur Stuart was convicted for permitting gaming on premises under his control, and appeals. Affirmed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted and convicted for permitting gaming on premises under his control, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25. The charging part of the indictment is as follows: That Arthur Stuart, on or about the 1st day of November, 1898, in the county of Limestone, state of Texas, "did then and there unlawfully permit a game with cards to be played upon premises under his control, the said premises being a public house, to wit, an outhouse, where divers people did then and there resort for gaming and other purposes," etc. Appellant insists the indictment is repugnant and duplicitous "because it first charges appellant permitted game with cards to be played upon premises under his control, and then states that the said premises were a public house, there being a distinction and difference between permitting a game with cards to be played upon premises that are public house"; and, second, because the indictment does not allege the facts which constitute said house a public house; and, third, because it is insufficient, and charges no offense against the law. The indictment, in our judgment, is good, and is in substantial compliance with the forms and precedents. The fact that it states "the said premises being a public house" does not make same duplicitous at all. These words could be treated as surplusage, and leave the indictment intact; but a careful scrutiny of the indictment shows what the pleader intended when he said it was a public house, for it says, "being a public house, to wit, an outhouse," etc., clearly showing not only a lack of duplicity, but a concise statement readily comprehended, and not susceptible of misapprehension.
In the bill appellant complains the court erred in refusing his special charge to the effect: "The word `permit,' as used in our statute, means that the person under whose control said premises were gave his consent and permission to such gaming; in other words, before you can convict, you must find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew gaming was taking place upon the premises under his control, and that same was done with his consent and permission." In the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curoe v. Spokane & Inland Empire Railroad Co.
... ... in Ann.Cas. 1916D, 28.] ... 2 ... After the codification, by the legislature, of the laws of ... the state, it is too late to question the validity of one of ... them on the ground that the title in the bill by which it was ... originally enacted was ... word "permit" pre-supposes that before one can ... permit a thing to be done he must have some knowledge that it ... is about to be done. (Stuart v. State (Tex. Cr.), 60 ... S.W. 554; Gray v. Stienes, 69 Iowa 124, 28 N.W. 475; ... Wilson v. State, 19 Ind.App. 389, 46 N.E. 1050; ... State v ... ...
-
Underwood v. State Bd. of Alcoholic Control, No. 74
...v. Wheeler, 38 N.D. 456, 165 N.W. 574 (1917). To permit gaming in one's house means to consent to it with knowledge. Stuart v. State, 60 S.W. 554 (Tex.Cr.App., 1901). We therefore hold that Regulation No. 30(5), authorizing suspension or revocation of license for 'permitting any person enga......
-
Larson v. Christianson
... ... v. Neal, 136 Ind. 173, 35 N.E. 1021 ... Section ... 7610, Rev. Codes 1899, creates a valid lien. Hardten et ... al. v. State, 32 Kan. 637, 5 P. 212; State v. Snyder et ... al., 34 Kan. 425, 8 P. 860 ... Fine ... and costs constitute a paramount lien ... nuisance. These are necessary facts to be shown before there ... is a lien and before it can be enforced. Stuart v. State ... (Tex. Cr. App.) 60 S.W. 554; Gray v. Stienes, ... 69 Iowa 124, 28 N.W. 475; State v. Pierce (Me.) 15 ... A. 68; Chicago v. Stearns, ... ...
-
Wright v. State
...played and permitted the boy to play the game. This contention is supported by Brown v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 419, 93 S. W. 723; Stuart v. State, 60 S. W. 554. The state's evidence is not sufficient to show that the minor played the game with the permission or even with the knowledge of app......