Case Name: Noisy Watson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-12-01
Citations: 88 Tex. Crim. 227
Docket Number: No. 5881
Parties: Noisy Watson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 227–231

Head Matter:
Noisy Watson v. The State.
No. 5881.
Decided December 1, 1920.
1.—Gaming—¡Recognizance—Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of the offense of being interested in a house used for gambling purposes, the recognizance recited that defendant had been convicted of operating a gambling house, the same was insufficient; however, the appellant having been given permission to file the recognizance or bond in terms of the law, and having complied with, such permission, the appeal is reinstated and will be disposed of on its merits.
2.—Same—Other Offenses—Evidence—Bes Gestae
Where, upon trial of being interested in a house where gaming tables, etc., were kept, etc., for the purposes of gaming, the State introduced testi mony. among other things, that the day after defendant was seen at the time of the so-called raid he arrested him and found a pistol on him at the time of the arrest, the admission of said testimony with reference to the said pistol, was inadmissible, as it was no part of the facts'necessary tc develop the res gestae of the charge of keeping said gambling house. Following Riggins v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Rep., 472.
3.—Same—Insufficiency of the Evidence—Gaming.
Although the cause must be reversed because of the admission of illegal evidence, the court calls attention to the testimony which is somewhat meager upon the question of defendant’s interest in the gambling house; and that the same should be strengthened to make the same sufficient in case of another trial.
4.—Same—Bequested Charges—General Beputution.
Upon trial of being interested in a gambling house, there was no error in the court’s refusal to give certain special charges, the effect of which was to tell the jury that, while the general reputation might be admissible to show the character of the place alleged to have been occupied, such testimony could not be used to establish defendant’s connection therewith, as there was no such testimony as to the general reputation of the place offered.
Appeal from the District Court of Eastland. Tried below before the Honorable E. A. Hill.
Appeal from a conviction of being interested in a gambling house; penalty, two years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Mays & Mays, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Erwin v. State, 8 S. W. Rep., 275; Hanks v. State, 111 id., 402; Spriggs v. State, 125 id., 27.
On question of general reputation: Machem v. State, 109 S. W. Rep., 126.
On question of - admitting testimony as to carrying pistol: Riggins v. State, 60 S. W. Rep., 877; Clark v. State, 128 S. W. Rep., 131.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of defective recognizance and re-instatement of appeal: Cryer v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 621; Ausbrook v. State, 70 id., 289; White v. State, 151 S. W. Rep., 826.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
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. Fe 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.
Dismissed.
MOTION TO PILE BOND, ETC.
November 10, 1920.
LATTIMORE, Judge.
This case ivas dismissed at a former day of rhis term, for want of a sufficient recognizance, and appellant has tiled 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 he 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 tne case may be, to be entered into and filed within fifteen days after the making of this order, and a duly certified copy thereof to be filed with the eierk of this court not later than twenty days after the making of this order.
The clerk of this Court will at once notify the attorneys for the appellant of this order. <
Leave to file recognizance, etc-