Case Name: Will Sharp v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-01-24
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 542
Docket Number: No. 7356
Parties: Will Sharp v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 542–544

Head Matter:
Will Sharp v. The State.
No. 7356.
Decided January 24, 1923.
Rehearing denied February 28, 1923.
1. — Gaming—Remaining in Gaming House — Requested Charges.
In a misdemeanor case in order to secure review of the action of the lower court in refusing requested charges, the record must show the fact that due exceptions were taken at the time to the charge of court as given. Following Boatenhaimer v. State, 84 Texas Crim. Rep., 211.
2: — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of remaining in a gaming house where gambling was conducted, the evidence sustained the conviction there was no reversible error.
3. — Same—Statutes Construed — Charge of Court.
It is not necessary for the proof to show that the House in question was a public gambling house; it is only necessary when the gambling takes place in a private residence occupied by a family that it must be alleged and proved that it is one commonly resorted to for the purpose of gaming, and under the evidence and charge of the court the conviction is sustained.
Appeal from the County Court of Wichita. Tried below before the Honorable Guy Rogers.
Appeal from a conviction of entering and remaining in a house where gaming was being conducted; penalty, a fine of $25.
The opinion states the case.
Fred K. Spurlock, and Mathis & Caldwell, for appellant.
On question. of insufficiency of. the evidence: Walters v. State, 125 S. W. Rep., 11; Pythian v. State, 237 id., 559.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the County-Court at law of Wichita County of the offense of entering and remaining in a house where gaming was being conducted, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25.
There was no exception taken to the charge of the trial court. Appellant presented a number of special charges suggesting the presentation of defensive theories in a manner different from their presentation in the main charge which were refused, which action is made the subject of bills of exception. This court held in Black v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 218, 234 S. W. Rep., 397, that in a misdemeanor case, in order to secure review of the action of the lower court in refusing special corrective charges, the record must reflect the fact that there were exceptions taken to the charge of, the court as given. See Boatenhaimer v. State, 84 Texas Crim. Rep., 211. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the ruling set forth in the opinion in said case.
The sufficiency of the testimony to show that the place at which the alleged gambling was being conducted, was not a private residence, is raised in the motion for new trial. There was testimony both ways upon the trial and this issue was affirmatively presented in the charge of the court and settled against appellant by the verdict of the jury.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.
Affirmed.