Case Name: KNOX v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-05-03
Citations: 138 S.W. 787
Docket Number: 
Parties: KNOX v. STATE.
Judges: DAVIDSON, P. J., dissents.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 138
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
KNOX v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 3, 1911.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1911.)
1. Statutes (§ 285 ) — 'Validity—House Journals — Evidence.
As Const, art. 3, § 30, providing that no law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so amended on its passage through either house as to change its original purpose, in contradistinction to sections 38 and 39 of the same article, does not require the House Journals to affirmatively show a compliance, the House Journals cannot be examined to determine whether the Legislature, in the passage of an act defining and prohibiting gaming (Penal Code 1895, art. 3S8b), complied with the Constitution ; the enrolled bill being conclusive on the courts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 384; Dec. Dig. § 285. ]
2. Statutes (§ 18 ) — Validity—House Journals.
Const, art. 3, § 38, providing that the presiding officer of each house shall, in the presence of the house over which he presides, sign all bills passed by the Legislature after their titles have been publicly read, and that the fact of signing shall be entered on the journals, does not require the journals of the two houses to affirmatively show what the title of the bill was or that the full title thereof was read; and hence an act defining and prohibiting gaming (Pen. Code 1895, art. 388b) is not unconstitutional, because the journals failed to show those facts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. § 18. ]
3. Statutes (§ 118 ) — Title—Acts.
Acts 30th Leg. ch. 49, being an act to amend Pen. Code 1895, art. 388, and generally suppress gambling, does not, by making it an offense to wager money at cards, contravene Const, art. 3, § 35, providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed ih its title.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 158-160; Dec. Dig. § 118. ]
4. Statutes (§ 286 ) — 'Validity—Reading of Title — Evidence.
Under Const, art. 3, § 38, requiring the presiding officers of each house to sign bills when passed after their titles have been publicly read and the fact of signing to be entered on the journals, Pen. Code 1895, art. 388b, making it a felony for any person to keep a place to be used as a place to gamble with cards, held, under the evidence, to be the bill signed by the presiding officer of each house after the reading of the title thereof.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Statutes, Dec. Dig. § 286. ]
5. Gaming (§ 98 ) — Criminal Responsibility —Prosecution—Evidence.
In a prosecution for keeping a house where people resorted for the purpose of gambling and betting with cards,' evidence held sufficient to support the verdict.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Gaming, Dec. Dig. § 98. ]
Davidson, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
Lewis Knox was convicted of keeping a house where people resorted for the purpose of betting and gambling with cards, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Quitman Finlay, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Por other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
The appellant was charged in the indictment with keeping a house where people did resort for the purpose of betting and gambling with cards. Upon a trial he was convicted, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The same questions, as to the unconstitutionality of the Acts of the 30th Legislature, as were presented in the case of Parshall v. State, 138 S. W. 759, decided at the present term of the court, are presented in this case. . This question is so fully discussed in that ease we do not deem it necessary here, but under the authority of that case and for the reasons therein stated we hold the act is not' unconstitutional.
The only other question raised in this case is the insufficiency of the evidence. It is undisputed that appellant was in control of the house where the gambling is alleged to have taken place.. Will Hardeman, Claude Barnett, and Merit Manning all testify that gambling took place at the house. We will here state a portion of the testimony of Hardeman. He says: "Sometimes we would play a little coon-can, and gamble; something like that. I have also played tie-t'ie and monte there. I have played tie-tie, monte, and coon-can. In playing monte one deals and the rest pike at him. Sometimes Lewis would deal a little monte for us and we would pike at him, and again some other fellow would deal and' we would pike at' him. Sometimes Lewis would deal in a two-handed game. He would have the money in front of him, and we would pike at it. Besides Lewis, there was a fellow, Wash Ware, dealing monte. I think he was a cousin to Lewis. I believe I was in a monte game with Lewis there about four times during this past summer and spring. I was in a coon-can game there seven or eight times with him. I was in a tie-tie game with him five or six times. We all bet money. We would bet two bits, and maybe four bits, owing to how much you wanted to bet on the game. When Lewis dealt in the' monte games when I was there and won the money, he kept it; he won it. As many negroes as could gather down around at the time would play monte. Sometimes there would be about 12, or 10, or 11, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 or 12. There were so many there that I could not tell who all was there. Some of them were Claude Barnett, Alex Dennam, Dan Wakefield, and Wash Ware. I saw Prank Walls there, and Merit Manning. Those people whose names I have called were at different times in the games with us all. They bet their money too, in the same games where I saw Lewis dealing in the monte games. Just two can play coon-can at a time. Just as many as can get around the game can play monte at a time. In a tie-tie game two deal, and all can get in that want to. Tie-tie is a banking game; it is nearly the same as monte. In tie-tie one man deals one time, and the next time it will be the other man's deal. It was about two months after Christmas when I was there. • I was not there during Christmas and along that time. I was there the last time just before he was arrested. I reckon I was there something like once a week up until the time he was arrested." The other witnesses corroborate this testimony. The testimony, wé think, sustains the verdict.-
The judgment is affirmed.
DAVIDSON, P. J., dissents.