Turbeville v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Turbeville v. State

38 S.W. 1010, 37 Tex. Crim. 145, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 47

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 10, 1897

DocketNo. 1142.

StatusPublished

This text of 38 S.W. 1010 (Turbeville 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

Turbeville v. State, 38 S.W. 1010, 37 Tex. Crim. 145, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 47 (Tex. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully playing cards at a public house, and fined $10, and appeals. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment. Said indictment, as to the charging part, is as follows: “That defendant did then and there, in the county and State aforesaid, unlawfully play at a game with cards in a public house, to-wit: a certain printing office, commonly, open to the public for business purposes,” etc. The court overruled the motion to quash. In this action of the court there was no error. The indictment in this respect is in accordance with the decisions of this court. See Willson, Grim. Forms, sec. 239, and authorities there cited. We have examined the testimony in this case, and in our opinion the evidence does not sustain the verdict of the jury. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a public place or house may be public at some time, according to its uses, and the public have the right to enter the same for the purpose of business, recreation, or amusement; but it may be private at other times. The proof in this case showed that in the daytime the printing office, where the game was alleged to have been played, was a public house, where the public had a right to and did enter for the purposes of business; but there is no proof whatever that it was used as a public place at night, at which time the game is shown to have been played. On the contrary, the proof is to the effect that it was not so used at night. The proof further shows that the office was *146 shut, and all of the outside windows, except the one which opened into the hack yard, had blinds on them, and the office was made private, and not open to the public or to their observation. Because, in our opinion, there is no evidence to sustain the finding of the jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and Remanded.

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

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully playing cards at a public house, and fined $10, and appeals. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment. Said indictment, as to the charging part, is as follows: “That defendant did then and there, in the county and State aforesaid, unlawfully play at a game with cards in a public house, to-wit: a certain printing office, commonly, open to the public for business purposes,” etc. The court overruled the motion to quash. In this action of the court there was no error. The indictment in this respect is in accordance with the decisions of this court. See Willson, Grim. Forms, sec. 239, and authorities there cited. We have examined the testimony in this case, and in our opinion the evidence does not sustain the verdict of the jury. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a public place or house may be public at some time, according to its uses, and the public have the right to enter the same for the purpose of business, recreation, or amusement; but it may be private at other times. The proof in this case showed that in the daytime the printing office, where the game was alleged to have been played, was a public house, where the public had a right to and did enter for the purposes of business; but there is no proof whatever that it was used as a public place at night, at which time the game is shown to have been played. On the contrary, the proof is to the effect that it was not so used at night. The proof further shows that the office was *146 shut, and all of the outside windows, except the one which opened into the hack yard, had blinds on them, and the office was made private, and not open to the public or to their observation. Because, in our opinion, there is no evidence to sustain the finding of the jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.W. 1010, 37 Tex. Crim. 145, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turbeville-v-state-texcrimapp-1897.