McFarland v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Texas

McFarland v. Jones

375 S.W.2d 348, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1668

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 10, 1963

DocketNo. 6599

StatusPublished

This text of 375 S.W.2d 348 (McFarland v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McFarland v. Jones, 375 S.W.2d 348, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1668 (Tex. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGHTOWER, Chief Justice.

The structure or buildings in which appellant was arrested for gambling were not shown to have been “gambling houses”, as that term is defined in Schepps v. City of El Paso, Tex.Civ.App., 338 S.W.2d 955. [349]*349The sum of $1,984.00 found upon the person of appellant and ordered confiscated by the trial court was not, under the circumstances and evidence, subject to confiscation within the meaning of Art. 636 and 637, Vernon’s Annotated Penal Code of Texas, Schepps v. City of El Paso, supra.; Jones v. Pettigrew, Tex.Civ.App., 328 S.W.2d 450; Davis v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d 757. Nor was the money sought to be confiscated commingled with gambling equipment or paraphernalia in such manner as to constitute it an integral part thereof within the meaning of Art. 636, 637, supra. See opinion by this court of April 25, 1963, Demaris, et al. v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 367 S.W.2d 909.

Appellant’s contention that he is entitled to interest on his money from the date of its confiscation is deemed to be without merit. Jones v. Pettigrew, supra.

The judgment of the trial court confiscating appellant’s money aforesaid is reversed and judgment is here rendered that said sum he returned to appellant.

Reversed and rendered.

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

HIGHTOWER, Chief Justice.

The structure or buildings in which appellant was arrested for gambling were not shown to have been “gambling houses”, as that term is defined in Schepps v. City of El Paso, Tex.Civ.App., 338 S.W.2d 955. [349]*349The sum of $1,984.00 found upon the person of appellant and ordered confiscated by the trial court was not, under the circumstances and evidence, subject to confiscation within the meaning of Art. 636 and 637, Vernon’s Annotated Penal Code of Texas, Schepps v. City of El Paso, supra.; Jones v. Pettigrew, Tex.Civ.App., 328 S.W.2d 450; Davis v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d 757. Nor was the money sought to be confiscated commingled with gambling equipment or paraphernalia in such manner as to constitute it an integral part thereof within the meaning of Art. 636, 637, supra. See opinion by this court of April 25, 1963, Demaris, et al. v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 367 S.W.2d 909.

Appellant’s contention that he is entitled to interest on his money from the date of its confiscation is deemed to be without merit. Jones v. Pettigrew, supra.

The judgment of the trial court confiscating appellant’s money aforesaid is reversed and judgment is here rendered that said sum he returned to appellant.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 S.W.2d 348, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarland-v-jones-texapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack