Case Name: WATSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-10-13
Citations: 225 S.W. 753
Docket Number: No. 5881
Parties: WATSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 225
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
WATSON v. STATE.
(No. 5881.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Appeal Dismissed.
Oct. 13, 1920.
Reinstated Nov. 10, 1920.
Determined on Merits Dec. 1, 1920.)
1. Bail &wkey;>66 — Recognizance on conviction of being interested in gaining house insufficient.
On appeal from conviction of being interested in a house and building where gaming tables and banks were kept and exhibited for purposes of gaming, defendant’s recognizance, stating that he had been convicted of the offense of operating a gambling house, was insufficient; there being no such offense, eo nomine, and the recognizance not setting out the constituent elements of any offense known to Texas law.
On the Merits.
2. Criminal law &wkey;365(3), 369(15), 371.(1)— Testimony that defendant charged with interest in gaming house carried pistol inadmissible.
In a prosecution for being interested in a gaming house, testimony of a raiding officer that when he arrested defendant the next day he found a pistol on him was inadmissible, not being part of the facts necessary to develop the res gestae, and not tending to connect defendant with the offense charged against him, nor. to shed light on his intent or identity.
3.Criminal law <&wkey;814(12)— Requested charges as to reputation of gaming house properly refused in absence of testimony.
In a prosecution for being interested in a gaming house, where there was no testimony offered as to the general reputation of the place, the trial court properly refused to give defendant’s requested special charges .that, while general reputation might be admissible to show the character of the place, it could not be used to establish defendant’s connection therewith.
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County ; E. A. Hill, Judge.
Noisy Watson was convicted of being interested in a house and building where gaming tables and banks were kept and exhibited for gaming, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Mays & Mays, of Et. Worth, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
Dismissal of Appeal.
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted of being interested in a house and building where gaming tables and banks were, kept and exhibited for purposes of gaming, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The recognizance made by appellant is insufficient. It states that appellant had been convicted of the offense of operating a gambling house. We have no such offense eo nomine, and said recognizance does not set out the constituent elements of any offense known to our law.
The appeal is dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate.
This case was dismissed at a former day of this term, for want of a sufficient recognizance, and appellant has filed herein his motion, asking for leave to file a new recognizance or appeal bond, under such orders as the court may direct.
Leave is hereby given to appellant to file a recognizance in terms of law, as prescribed by article 903, of Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, if the court below be in session at this time; and, if said court be not in session, then leave is .given appellant to file his appeal bond in terms of law, as required by article 904, of Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure —said recognizance, or bond, as the case may be, to be entered into and filed within 15 days after the making of this order, and a duly certified copy thereof to be filed with the clerk of this court not later than 20 days after the making of this order.
The clerk of this court will at once notify the attorneys for the appellant of this order.
©s^Eor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests and Indexes