Bookman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bookman v. State

269 S.W. 449, 99 Tex. Crim. 352, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 159

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided February 25, 1925·No. No. 8658.·Published

Opinion

HA WAINS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted upon the charge that he did “unlawfully keep and was interested in keeping a building, room and place for the purpose of being used as a place to bet and wager money and other things of value at a game played with dice,” etc.

His: punishment was assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Our attention is called to the insufficiency of the recognizance entered into by appellant for his enlargement pending appeal. It recites that appellant has been convicted of the “offense of running a. gaming house.” No such offense as described in the recognizance is: known to our law.

Because of the error pointed out the appeal must be dismissed, and it is; so. ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HA WAINS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted upon the charge that he did “unlawfully keep and was interested in keeping a building, room and place for the purpose of being used as a place to bet and wager money and other things of value at a game played with dice,” etc.

His: punishment was assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Our attention is called to the insufficiency of the recognizance entered into by appellant for his enlargement pending appeal. It recites that appellant has been convicted of the “offense of running a. gaming house.” No such offense as described in the recognizance is: known to our law.

Because of the error pointed out the appeal must be dismissed, and it is; so. ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

Bookman v. State, 269 S.W. 449, 99 Tex. Crim. 352, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 159 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

269 S.W. 449 (Bookman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.