Case Name: TINDALL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-08
Citations: 244 S.W. 816
Docket Number: No. 6766
Parties: TINDALL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 244
Pages: 816–816

Head Matter:
TINDALL v. STATE.
(No. 6766.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 8, 1922.)
Gaming &wkey;>92— Indictment 'for permitting’ use of premises for gambling held insufficient to charge feiony.
An indictment charging accused with unlawfully and knowingly permitting a building, room', and place owned by him to be used as a place, to bet, wáger, and gamble with cards and.as a place where people resorted for such purpose, is insufficient to charge a felony under Pen. Code 1911, art. 559.
Appeal from District Court, Wheeler County;. W. R. Ewing, Judge.
J. M. Tindall was convicted of permitting his premises to be used for gaming purposes, and he appeals:
Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed. ■
M. Reynolds, of Shamrock, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. ’

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Wheeler county of permitting his premises to be used for pur-, poses of gaming, and his punishment fixed at' two years in the penitentiary.
The indictment contained two counts, the second of which only was submitted to the ,iury. Same reads as follows:
"And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present in and to said court that on or about the 1st day of March, A. D. 1921, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment in the county of Wheeler, state of Texas, J. M. Tindall did then and there unlawfully and knowingly permit a building, room and place, which was then and there owned by the said J. M. Tindall, to be used as a place to bet, wager and gamble, with cards, and as a place where people resorted for the purpose of betting, wagering and gambling with cards, against the peace and dignity of the state."
No motion to quash or in arrest of judgment was ma.de, but appellant here insists that under the authority of the cases of Francis v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 67, 233 S. W. 974, and Deisher v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 467, 233 S. W. 978, a felony conviction cannot' be sustained for the reason that similar indictments were held in said cases not to charge felonies under article 559 of our Penal Code. An inspection of the opinions in the two cases, supra, will show that the indictments condemned as being insufficient to charge a felony under article 559, P. C., are exact counterparts of the one in the instant case, and. under authority of those cases appellant's contention must be upheld.
The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
<&=>For other oases' see same topic and KEY-NUMBBR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes