Elliott v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Elliott v. State

94 S.W.2d 744, 130 Tex. Crim. 359, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 20, 1936

DocketNo. 18354.

StatusPublished

This text of 94 S.W.2d 744 (Elliott v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. State, 94 S.W.2d 744, 130 Tex. Crim. 359, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236 (Tex. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for maintaining a lottery; punishment, a fine of $100.00.

We find in this record no complaint. Under the practice in this State and the law thereof an information must be founded upon a complaint. In this condition of the record this court is without jurisdiction.

It is easily possible that the failure to file a complaint resulted from oversight. If a complaint and information should *360 be filed in this case and prosecution had hereafter, we call attention to the fact that there is nothing in this record to support the averment of the establishment of a lottery by this appellant. Somebody put a slot machine in the place of business known as the Tree Tavern. There is no testimony showing that either the slot machine or place of business belonged to this appellant, or that anybody ever saw appellant engaged in the operation of said place of business or machine. Such facts would not support a conviction.

Because of the absence of a complaint the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

Reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for maintaining a lottery; punishment, a fine of $100.00.

We find in this record no complaint. Under the practice in this State and the law thereof an information must be founded upon a complaint. In this condition of the record this court is without jurisdiction.

It is easily possible that the failure to file a complaint resulted from oversight. If a complaint and information should *360 be filed in this case and prosecution had hereafter, we call attention to the fact that there is nothing in this record to support the averment of the establishment of a lottery by this appellant. Somebody put a slot machine in the place of business known as the Tree Tavern. There is no testimony showing that either the slot machine or place of business belonged to this appellant, or that anybody ever saw appellant engaged in the operation of said place of business or machine. Such facts would not support a conviction.

Because of the absence of a complaint the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

Reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.W.2d 744, 130 Tex. Crim. 359, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-state-texcrimapp-1936.