The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1877-01-21
PIN POOL.
Important BecIsi0n Of the Court OI
Appeals ON the CnniinaiIIy al piny-
iuL ~,

Appeals ON the CnIiinaiIIy al piny-
inS -.
The following Is the decision Of Judge
John =. White, Of the Court Of APP
peas, in the case OF o. futile w theStnte
OF Texas, on appeal from Kaufman;
Appellant was convicted upon In
formation in the County court Of Kauf-
man county for keeping and exhibit
ing gaming table tor the purpose OF
gaming. He was found guilty by the
verdict Of the jury and his punishment
assessed at "A fine Of TWENTY-FIVE dollars.
in his motion in arrest OF judgment,
he claims that the offence OF which he
IL charged was exclusively within the
o iginal jurisdiction Of n justice Of the
peace, and that the County court did
not have aud should not have enter.
tanned jurisdiction to try and deter
mine the same.
The Information was based upon the
amendment to Art. Az OF the Penal
Code approved April 9th, 1873, and
found in the Acts Of the 10 Legislature,
page 36, sec !. The punishment de-
nounced against party accused and
found guilty under this act IL that "he
shall be fined not less than twenty-five
dollars, nor more than one hundred
dollars, aud may be confined In the
county jail nor more than thirty days"
Our present State Constitution has
conferred upon the County court
Original jurisdiction in all misde.
meanors OF which exclusive original
Jurisdiction il not given TO the Justices
courts, as the same are now, or may be
hereafter prescribed by law, aud when
the lne 10 be imposed shall not exceed
two hundred dollars" (sec. 10, art
o. COnsJilutioD). Section ~, OF
article of the Constitution
ton empowers Justices of the Peace
with jurisdiction in criminal matters
of all cases where the penalty or fine
TO be imposed by law may not be for
more than two hundred dollars.
The phrasGOlOgy o! these two sections
We think, admits Of but one c0nstruc-
ton, and that il, that tho trainers OF
our organic law intended only to con-
fer upon Justices Courts exclusive jul
rlsdction IN cases where the penalty
was 10y pecuniary fine alone, not to
exceed the limit IL specified. lmpris-
onment In the county Jail cannot be
estimated in dollars, nor can 1t be
considered in any manner u pecuniary
fine. IL follows, therefore, In the Opin-
ion OF this Court, that whenever in
misdemeanors imprisonment may be
assessed N an alternative, or as n part
of the punishment TO be imposed.
Justices Courts have no jurisdiction
to try. OF course this rule Ii not TO be
understood as applicable to, or inter-
ferlng In any manner with the author
ity, Of such Courts, to imprison
for the non'payment Of fines
and costs, or when necessary, to
assert, protect and enforce their author
lty, In cases where their jurisdiction
properly obtains. The Court, then,
did not err in everything defendants
motion in arrest Of judgment. An
other ground assigned for error IL, that
the Court permitted the States wit
ness, over the objections 10y defendant,
to prove that parties played the game
Of pool on defendants billiard
tables for the drinks, or the
tickets, that IL, that the parties
had played the game. with the
understanding among the players, that
the one who was defeated should pay
for the drinks.
The objections to this testimony
were urged upon the grounds, first,
because under the laws OF Texas, as
they now exist, person can not be
convicted of keeping or exhibiting u
gaming table, such AS pool, when the
same Is played on regularly licensed
billiard table, unless it be shown that
money was actually bet thereon and,
second, because the statute OF April,
1873, making 1t an oilense to keep or
exhibit II table for gaming, where the
table fees, etc., only are bet, does not
apply TO the game OF pool, when plays
ed upon regularly licensed billiard
table, but only applies to pigeon. hole
tables aud Jenny Lind tables. The
first objection is doubtless predicated
upon the supposed construction of the
last clause of Article 2O50, Paschaps
Digest, which Is In these words "Any
game for money upon billiard table,
or table resembling n billiard table,
other than the game OF billiards
licensed by law, Is punishable under
the provisions of this chapter" II IL
sufficient answer to this objection
to quote the language OF Wheeler,
judge, in Bachelor w. the State. He
says 'lf the parties bet upon the
game with the understanding that the
loser should pay the bill of the COM
pany, II was In effect u betting of
money 1t certainly was not what the
parties mig drink, which was rlsked
or bet upon the game; 1t was not
property, nor it's representative, but
1t was money, which instead OF being
paid by the loser to the winner, was
paid to the dramseller no
Tex, 262. AZ to the second
objection. 1t will be seen that
by express terms, the game Of spool"
Is made one of the prohibited games
by the statute TART, 1850 Paschal's Di-
gest), and 1t is prohibited by the stat
ute, whether IL DO exhibited, as most
usual, or on u ten pin alley, or whether
any other evasive device be adopted
for its exhibition (the State VS.. Kelly,
XNlV Texas, 1927. Our Supreme Court
have had occasion to construe the act
of April, 1873, In the case OF Longworth
vs.. The State. Chief Justice Roberts de-
livering the opinion, says: Amend
ment of the two articles OF the code
az and 4lSl by the act OF the Thlr-
teen Legislature pamphlet acts, page
1851 does not in any way affect or annul
the exception made In favor OF u bill
Hard table, or table resembling q bill
lizard table, upon which alone is played
the licensed game of billiards (Pas.
chaPs Digest, Art. 20OO), Such table,
upon which alone the licensed game
of billiards is played, may lawfully be
kept rs a gaming table for betting
money, drinks, table charge, or any
thing else, the same as ON horse. rae
on the turf. The main object OF the
referred to seems to be,