Case Name: Rice v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1853
Citations: 10 Tex. 545
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rice v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 273–273

Head Matter:
Rice v. The State.
A common gambling house is a public place or house within the meaning of the statutes against gaming.
That the witnesses saw monejr on the table where the defendant and others were playing cards is sufficient to authorize the jury to find that money was bet.
Appeal from Cass. Tlie defendant was indicted for playing “ a game with “ cards on which money was bet in a public house where people resort,” “ kept “and occupied by one John M. Dollahite.” There was a motion to quash the indictment, which the court overruled.
A witness testified that the playing ivas in a room occupied by Dollahite, situated in the rear of his grocery, in the town of Jefferson, but not connected with the grocery or upon any public street; that the room was surrounded by a high plank feñee, and that the enclosure had very much the appearance of a fort". The witness did not consider it a public house; lie saw money on the table where the playing was, but saw none bet. The presiding judge certified that it. was in proof “that the house when» the defendant played was a common “gambling house, erected in the rear of the ‘saloon’ for tho accommodation of ■“gamblers, and to supply his grocery with customers,” &c.
The court instructed the jury, in effect, that the plea came within the meaning and intention of the statutory inhibition, and that it was not necessary for the prosecution to adduce positive proof that money was bet, hut the jury were at liberty to judge from the circumstances whether or not money was bet upon the game. The defendant was convicted and appealed.
Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Wheeler, J.
This case is submitted by the attorney general iiiion a motion to affirm the judgment, on the ground that there is no assignment of errors or error apparent in the record. And on an inspection of the record we are of opinion that there is no error in the judgment. There is no question presented by the record which has not been heretofore determined by the decisions of this court, for which see Prior v. The State, (4 Tex. R., 383;) Cole v. The State, and Sublett v. The State, (7 Tex. R.;) Lockhart v. The State, and King v. The State, (decided at this term.)
Judgment affirmed.