The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-04-30
THE HIGHER COURTS.
COURT OF APPEALS.

JOnn BLAND We. inc 6Jatei from wise
county. Hurt, ], Conviction for theft
Of horse. 1t is alleged in the lndict-
ment that the horse was taken from the
possession of one Kinkannon, and
that 1t was the property Of one Nurs5h.
The want of consent OF Nunsen is al
legged, but the indictment fails TO mega
tive the want OF consent of Binkannon.
This Is fatal to the sufliciency of the in
dictment Reversed anc dismissed
Knat Kramer VS.. the State; from
Cooke county. Hurt, ], This is scire
faciaa case, in which tho principal was
charged with exhibiting faro bank, for
the purpose of gaming. The appear
ance bond describes the offence as OK
hibiting faro bank, emitting to de-
scribe 1t as for tho purpose of gaming.
Held: Simply TO exhibit faro bank Is
no offence. Reversed and dismissed.
G. w. Tlmmins VS.. the State; from
Parker county. White, y. ]. Omitting
journal allegations, the indictment
charges the otiense thusly: "Did then
and there play at game with cards at
public place, to-wit: In certain room
in Spring Town, in said county, and
which said room is occupied by Doc.
Hannah as quirt shop, and which said
room was then and there commonly
used for gaming" etc. Held, Conced-
Ing that a "'quirt shop" is public
house, the indictments Insufficient, be-
cause it fails to allege that tho room was
occupied by Hannah as squirt shop"
when the playing was done. The
statute (P. Q. Art 1859 specifically names
certain houses as public houses, and
{ urther, 1t is generally provided that
call houses commonly known as public,
and all gaming houses are included
within the meaning Of the statute;n
p. g. Art. $3.50. A squirt shop Is not
one OF these houses, nor does this court
know that such shop is "gaminG
house, or is commonly known rs a
"public house."
1t has been held that "jail house, is
not necessarily public house Estate VS.
Alvey, % Tex, 1851, and that calling Z
place "the Occidental saloon" in an In
dictment does not show that 1t was {
house for retailing spirituous liquors
State VS.. Mausher, 80 Tex, S6l).
To sufficiently charge the ofl'ense o
playing cards In public place, the in
dictment must allege the facts which
constitute the place Of playing public
place, unless It be place specifically
named in the statue. Jackson VS.. tho
State, 10 CT. App, 37S; Fossett vs.. tn,
State idem, $40; Bowman VS.. the State
tdem, 5l3).
Nor is the defect in this indictment
cured by the allegation that the room
was commonly used for gaming
r oom commonly used for gaming Is no
a place which would bring the ofienst
within the statute, unless the room
attached to public house. (P O., Art
3 So; Weiss VS.. the State, 10 CT. App
A3D. Reversed and dismissed.
John Bacchus vs.. the State; from Bay
lor county. White, p.i The iniorma
ton charged appellant with unlawful.
playing Eat game with cards at
house used for retailing splrituou
liquors." and further alleges that h
did play at a game with cards q
place commonly used for the purpos
of gaming" Held: The first of thes
Q cunts was good; the second fatally dc
fective. (Timmins VS.. State, supra).
The judge, in charging the jury as :
the manner and character of the ohenst
told them that the ofiense charged wa
"unlawfully playing at game wit
cards In house for retailing spirituou
liquors, and commonly used for the pul
pose of gaming" And further charge
them, of they found that defendar
committed the offense as charged In th
Information, they would find him gui
ty." Held; Error. Reversed and r.
manded.
George Timbrook Va. the State, froI
Wise; Wilson !. Where the executio
of an instrument Of writing permitto
or required by law 70 BIO recorded
proved whenit Is offered in evidenc
the filing and notice required by Ar
2257 Rev. Stat, Is not required. II
only when such instruments are o
fered in evidence without proof OF ex
oution that such fling and notice is r.
quired to render them admissible.
The evidence Of IL. AZ TO brand of ca
tie purchased from o. was admisHb
as II tended TO identity the allege
stolen animal az one OF those conveye
by o. TO II. by the bill OF sale, whic
described the cattle as branded 20
M this being the brand OF .. as show
by the record Of his brand req
In evidence. Where II
shown that witnesses are beyon
the limits Of the state and It appeal
sufficiently from the certificate OF q
magistrate accompanying the test
mony OF such witness aken before a
examining trial, that defendent wa
present when such evidence was take
and was afforded apriyiledge Of eros
.xamining said witness, their testimon