Case ID: tex_36/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ogden, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jo. Porter v. The State.
    On the trial of an indictment for hotting at faro, the court helow instructed the jury that, if they found the defendant guilty, they should assess his fine at a sum not less than one hundred nor more than two hundred and fifty dollars. Held to he error. By the Act of May 11th, 1871, the punishment affixed to the offenses charged, is a fine of not less than ten nor more than twenty-five dollars.
    Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Hardin Hart.
    The defendant was indicted in the District Court of Dallas county, under Article 2054 of Paschal’s Digest, for betting at faro. The case coming on to be tried, it was proved on the part of the State that sometime in the month of December, 1870, the defendant and one Henry Brown engaged in playing a game of faro—Brown dealing, and the defendant betting certain checks which among sporting men represented money.
    Hpon these facts the court instructed the jury that if they should find that the defendant bet at any gaming bank known as “ Faro,” or" used any checks or other things as the representative of money bet on said game, he was guilty of a misdemeanor, and was punishable by fine not less than one hundred nor more than two hundred and fifty dollars.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and assessed a fine against the defendant of one hundred dollars.
    The defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground that the court misdirected the jury as to the punishment of the offense.
    The motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant excepted and gave notice of appeal, assigning as error, the instruction by the court to the jury that if they should find the defendant guilty, they should assess a fine against him of not less than one hundred nor more than two hundred and fifty dollars, whereas, by Act of May 11th, 1871, the punishment had been reduced to not more than twenty-five nor less than ten dollars.
    The same act reduced the penalty of keeping gaming tables to not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars.
    
      Good & Bower, for appellant.
    
      Wm. Alexander, Attorney-General, for the State.
   Ogden, J.

The appellant was indicted and convicted for betting at a game of faro. On the trial the court charged the jury that if they found the defendant guilty, they should assess his fine at not less than one hundred, and not more than two hundred and fifty dollars. This was error. The law fixing the punishment for such offenses was amended on the 11th of May, 1871, and which amendment was in force at the time of the trial of this case. By that amendment the punishment for such offenses is fixed at not" less than ten dollars, nor more than twenty-five dollars. For the error here indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.