Case Name: Pat Wilkerson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1903-02-11
Citations: 44 Tex. Crim. 455
Docket Number: No. 2550
Parties: Pat Wilkerson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 455–460

Head Matter:
Pat Wilkerson v. The State.
No. 2550.
Decided February 11, 1903.
Motion for Rehearing Decided March 18, 1903.
1.—Playing Cards in a Hotel—Indictment.
An indictment brought under article 379, White’s Annotated Penal Code, for playing cards in a room inf a hotel, is sufficient although it does not negative that the cards were played at a private residence. Following Hodges v. State, ante, p. 444.
ON REHEARING.
2. —Indictment—Pleading Statutory Exceptions.
If a statutory exception is so incorporated with the clause describing the offense that it becomes in fact a part of the description, then the exception must be pleaded; but if it is not so incorporated with the. clause defining the offense, then it is a matter of defense that must be proved by defendant, though it be in the .same section, or even in the succeeding section.
3. —Gaming—Article 379, Penal Code.
Under the amended article 379, White’s Annotated Penal Code, as to gaming, the latter clause, “or at any place except a private residence occupied by a family,” does not enter into the definition of any of the previous clauses of said article, but was simply intended to cover all places not previously prohibited; and it is not necessary to negative it in an indictment charging the playing in any of the previously enumerated public houses or places.
Appeal from the County Court of Dallas. Tried below before Hon. Ed S. Lauderdale, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of playing cards in a room of a hotel; penalty, a fine of $10.
No statement required.
Miller & Fouralcer, for appellant,
as to necessity of negativing the statutory exception in the indictment, cited specially Colchell v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 584.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, fpr the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
The charging part of the indictment under which appellant was convicted alleges that he "did unlawfully play at a game with cards in a public place, to wit, a room in the St. George Hotel building, then and there occupied and used for the purpose of gaming." It is contended, under article 379, White's Annotated Penal Code, as amended, that this indictment is not sufficient, because it fails to negative the fact that the game of cards was in a private residence. The amended article reads as follows: "If any person shall play at any game with cards at any house for'retailing spirituous liquor, storehouse, tavern, inn or other public house, or in any street, highway, or other public place, or in any outhouse where people resort, or at any place except a private residence occupied by a family, he shall be fined." The contention is that the expression, "or at any place except a private residence occupied by a family," relates to and qualifies all the provisions of the article. This article prohibits gaming in four different sections—at public places, such as houses for retailing spirituous liquor, storehouse, tavern, inn, and other public houses; or any street, highway, or other public place; or in an outhouse where people resort; or at any place except a private residence. The latter clause is simply to cover all other places not enumerated in the three previous subdivisions, and does not apply to and qualify the previous subdivision. Appellant was indicted under the first clause of this statute, and Comer's case, 36 Texas Crim. App., 509, is in point. Therefore we are of opinion that the indictment is sufficient. Hodges v. State, ante, p. 444. This is the only question presented for revision.
There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed