Case Name: Walton v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1855
Citations: 14 Tex. 381
Docket Number: 
Parties: Walton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
Walton v. The State.
Where the statement of facts on appeal, from a conviction for betting at a gaming table, showed that et checks” were used in betting, without any further evidence that the 11 checks ” represented money, or other property, it was held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Appeal from Panola. Indictment for betting at a gaming table. The evidence was that “ checks ” were used in betting, without any further evidence that the “ checks ” represented money or other property.
Attorney General, for appellee.
The motion for a new trial insists only that there was no proof that the defendant bet money. The statement of facts shows very clearly that he did ; but if this were otherwise, the verdict ought not to have been disturbed ; for Art. 1478 dispenses with the proof that money or any other specified thing was bet upon a gaming table, or banking game, by only requiring it to be charged that the party charged bet without stating what, so that here he, at least, bet the checks, whether they represented money or not.

Opinion:
Wheeler, J.
The question is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. And that it was amply sufficient is beyond a doubt. The statute (Hart. Dig. Art. 1478) dispenses with the necessity of proving what was bet, or in what, in particular, the betting consisted. It is sufficient to support a conviction, if the evidence was such as reasonably to satisfy the jury, that the defendant did " bet " or " was concerned in betting " as charged. Proof of the betting of " checks," as representing money, was sufficient proof of the betting of money. Proof sufficient to satisfy the jury that the defendant bet money or property, or anything which served as the representative of either, was sufficient proof of the betting charged in the indictment. The proof fully warranted the jury in finding that the defendant did bet money. The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.