Case ID: tex_30/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lindsay, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bennett & Harris v. The State.
    Where an indictment charged the defendants with suffering and permitting card-playing, on which money was bet, in a room attached to and a part of the house in which they were retailing spirituous liquors, and the proof sustained the charge, there is no error in a joint conviction.
    Appeal from Q-uadaloupe. The case was tried before Hon. John Ireland, one of the district judges. '
    The defendants were indicted for permitting gaming at their house, within the language of the statute. (Paschal’s Pig., Art. 2055, Rote 648.) It was proved that the defendants were the joint owners of a tippling-shop, and that a party rented from them an adjoining room, which was commonly used for gaming purposes. The proof tended to show that the room was under the same proprietorship and control as the tippling-shop.
    
      John P. White, for the appellant,
    relied upon Holtzclaw v. The State, 26 Tex., 682; Code Crim. Pro., Art. 396; Robinson v. The State, 24 Tex., 152.
    Ro brief for the state has been furnished to the Reporter.
    
   Lindsay, J.

There is no error committed in the court below which would warrant a reversal in this case. The indictment is good. The charge is that the defendants suffered and permitted card-playing, on which money was bet, in a room attached to and a part of the house in which they were retailing spirituous liquors. The proof on the trial established the truth of the charge, and we can see no reason to disturb the finding of the jury and the judgment of the court.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.