Case ID: tex-ct-app_25/html/0330-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Willson, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nos. 5667 and 5673.
    Tim Erwin v. The State.
    Exhibiting Gaming Bank—Evidence.—See the opinion and the statement of the case for the substance of evidence held insufficient to support a conviction for exhibiting a gaming bank.
    Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. Sam Furman, County Judge.
    This conviction was for exhibiting a gaming bank or table for the purpose of gaming, 'and the penalty assessed against the appellant was a fine of twenty-five dollars and confinement in the county jail for ten days.
    The two witnesses who were examined on the trial testified that they several times saw the defendant in the hall next to the room in which various gaming devices were exhibited for gaming purposes, and more than once or twice, looking through a hole in the door, they saw him inside of the room, but neither of them ever saw him manipulating the games.
    
      B. P. Ayres, for the appellant.
    
      W. L. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   Willson, Judge.

These convictions are for keeping” and exhibiting a gaming bank and table for the purpose of gaming. In both cases the evidence is substantially the same, and is, in our opinion, insufficient to sustain the convictions. It merely establishes the fact that the defendant was frequently seen in the house where the offense charged was being committed. It is not shown that he took any part in the gaming, that he owned or controlled the premises where it occurred, or any interest therein, or that he owned any interest in the table or bank, or was in any manner concerned in its operations. His mere presence at the place where the offense was being committed, in the absence of other facts showing that he participated or was concerned, or was interested in the commission of the offense, does not warrant the conclusion that he was guilty of the charges contained in these indictments; wherefore, the judgments are reversed and the causes are remanded.

Opinion delivered April 11, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.