Case Name: The State v. Cotton and others
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1851
Citations: 6 Tex. 425
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Cotton and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 213–213

Head Matter:
The State v. Cotton and others.
Daily and others v. The State, 4 Tex. R., 417, cited and approved.
“Gaming is not of itself an offense punishable by law; therefore a bond for the appearance of the principal to answer a charge of gaming is void.
Appeal from Houston. This was a proceeding on a bond for the appearance of the principal obligor to answer a charge of tiie State against him of gaming.
There was a forfeiture, and a scire facias issued, on the return of which the defendants appeared and by their counsel moved to quash tiie bond, ou the ground that the offense of “gaming” charged is not known to the law.
The court sustaiued the motion, and the State appealed.
Attorney General, for appellant.
I. The defendant below had no right to resort to the indictment or to set up as a defense that the charge of gaming was insufficient or unknown to tiie law as an offense. It was unnecessary that the offense charged in tiie indictment should be described with technical accuracy in the scire facias. (Hersch v. Groff, 2 Watts & Serg., 449: Dickson v. Wilkinson, 3 How., U. S. R., 57.)
II. Matter which might have been pleaded in defense of tiie original action cannot be pleaded in defense of a scire facias on the judgment. (Watkins v. The State, 7 Miss. R., 334.)

Opinion:
Lipscomb, J.
Tiie question presented is the same in principle as decided by this court in the case of Dailej' and others against the State, at Austin, at the December Term, 1849. (4 Tex. R., 417.) Iii that case tiie parties were bound in their bond to answer the State on a charge of having stolen goods in the possession of the principal. It was held by this court that tiie mere fact of "having stolon goods in possession " constituted no offense known to tiie law. In like manner the charge of "gaming" is not of itself an offense punishable by law.
Judgment affirmed.