Case Name: Kid Davis v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1897-01-27
Citations: 37 Tex. Crim. 359
Docket Number: No. 1138
Parties: Kid Davis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 359–362

Head Matter:
Kid Davis v. The State.
No. 1138.
Decided January 27th, 1897.
Motion for Rehearing Decided March 26th, 1897.
1. Flea of Former Conviction Under City Ordinance.
On a prosecution for playing cards on Sunday, in an incorporated city, defendant pleaded a former conviction in the city court under a city ordinance; which plea was stricken out on motion of the County Attorney, upon the ground that the city ordinance did not inhibit card playing on Sunday. Held: The plea was properly stricken out.
ON MOTION FOE BEHEAEING.
2. Same.
On a prosecution for playing cards on Sunday, in an incorporated city, where defendant pleaded former conviction in the city court, which plea was, upon its face, good; and it was made to appear that the city ordinance, under which the former conviction was had, was similar to Penal Code, Art. 198, except that said ordinance makes the enumerated offenses .criminal on any day of the week, and does not limit them to Sunday as does said Article 198. Held: The city ordinance being valid, and it being provided by Article 931, Code Crim. Proe., that no person shall be punished twice for an offense which is against the penal laws of the State as well as against city or town ordinances, it was error for the court below to strike out said plea of former conviction.
3. Same—Defective Complaint—Satisfaction of Judgment.
A plea of former conviction is, and will be, a bar to a further prosecution, though the former complaint was defective, where it appears that the defendant submitted to the former judgment and has paid his fine and costs accruing thereunder.
Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried below before Hon. J. C. Smith, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for playing cards on Sunday; penalty, a fine of $20.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
A. A. Kemble, for appellant.
Nat. P. Jackson and Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HENDERSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of unlawfully playing cards in an incorporated city on Sunday, and fined $20; hence this appeal. Appellant filed a plea of former conviction in the city court. The plea contains all the proceedings, showing said conviction. The affidavit on which said conviction was had, in the charging part, alleged that "said Kid Davis did then and there unlawfully play at a game of cards, in a public place, to-wit: a gambling house, in violation of the city ordinances of Ennis, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State." The ordinances of said city, attached to said plea as the basis of said prosecution, are as follows: "Any person who shall run or shall be engaged in running any horse race, or shall permit the use of any nine or ten pin alley, or shall engage in any match shoot, or any species of gaming for money, or other consideration, in this city, shall be fined not less than twenty nor more than fifty dollars." On the trial a motion was made by the County Attorney to strike out this plea, mainly on the ground that the said ordinances did not inhibit a game of cards being played on Sunday, because the affidavit did not allege an offense, because it did not state the name of the person with whom the defendant was alleged to have played, and did not allege that said defendant played for money. We think the contentions of the State were well taken. In McNeill v. State (Tex. Crim. App.), 33 S. W. Rep., 977, it was held that the action of the court, in a case involving the same question, in striking out said plea, was proper. The evidence sustains the conviction in this case, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.