Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 October 1906 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Red River County Court; J. R. Kennedy, Judge.
Irvin Thompson was convicted of gaming, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Chambers & Trice, for appellant. J. E. Yantis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted for betting at a game of craps, not at a private residence, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $10; hence this appeal.
Neither the information nor the proof shows that the game was played as a banking game, but was a simple game of craps, played between bettors. The proof showed, without controversy, that the game was played at a private residence. However, the judge who tried the case conceived the idea that, when a private residence is used for gaming, it ceases to be a private residence, under article 388, Pen. Code 1895. We do not agree to this proposition. That article, after enumerating the inhibited games, uses the following language: "* * * Provided no person shall be indicted under this section for playing any of said games with dice or dominoes, at a private residence." No exception is made in regard to such private residence becoming a gaming resort. Without noticing other questions presented, we do not believe the proof authorized the conviction, and the instruction of the court was erroneous. Borders v. State, 24 Tex. App. 333, 6 S. W. 532; Stewart v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 33, 28 S. W. 806; Faucett v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 113, 79 S. W. 548; Waggoner v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 92 S. W. 38. The game being played at a private residence, the fact that it was commonly resorted to for the purpose of gaming, the shooting of craps therein, would not deprive it of the character of a private residence under the statute.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State
...as such within the meaning of article 691, supra. Upon that subject the precedents are somewhat conflicting. See Thompson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 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......
-
Marks v. State
...the terms of article 388, appellant, in playing the game of craps at a private residence, has not violated the law. See Thompson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 96 S. W. 1085; Stewart v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 33, 28 S. W. 806; Faucett v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 113, 79 S. W. 548, and Waggoner v. Sta......
-
Garner v. State
... ... He testified that he wanted to get out of jail, and wanted to compromise his cases. He seems to have pleaded guilty in both of them on the next day, though, as we view the record, he was not guilty of any offense in shooting craps at a private residence. Irvin Thompson v. State (decided at the present term) 96 S. W. 1085 ... Because we believe that the court committed error in not submitting ... ...
- Crawford v. State