Booth v. State

26 Tex. 203
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1862·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Bell, J.

The indictment is insufficient, and the exception to it ought to have been sustained. The indictment ought to have alleged that the betting was upon a gaming table kept or exhibited for the purpose of gaming. If one of the games or gaming tables named in the statute, as for instance faro, monte, rondo, or another, be also named in the indictment, that will be sufficient, without alleging that it was kept or exhibited for the purpose of gaming, for that will be matter of legal inference; but where a game or gaming table named in the statute is not named in the indictment, [204] it must be alleged that the game or table referred to in the indictment was kept or exhibited for the purpose of gaming. The judgment is reversed and the case dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

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

Booth v. State, 26 Tex. 203 (Tex. 1862).

26 Tex. 203 (Booth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Doyle v. State
19 Tex. Ct. App. 410 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1885)
Wardlow v. State
18 Tex. Ct. App. 356 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1885)
Ben v. State
9 Tex. Ct. App. 107 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1880)
Anderson v. State
9 Tex. Ct. App. 177 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1880)
Wolz v. State
33 Tex. 331 (Texas Supreme Court, 1870)