Opinion
No. 1924.
Decided February 21, 1900.
Indictment — Permitting Gaming.
An indictment for permitting gaming in some prohibited place under one's control, to be sufficient should allege the playing of some game prohibited by the State.
APPEAL from the County Court of Mitchell. Tried below before Hon. J.E. HOOPER, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for permitting a game to be played in a place under one's control; penalty, a fine of $50.
Defendant made a motion to quash the indictment upon the ground that it did not charge that defendant permitted any game to be played which was prohibited by the statute. This motion was overruled.
No statement necessary.
Ernest Shepperd, for appellant. Rob't A. John, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of gaming. The indictment contains four counts, each count charging appellant with "permitting a game" in some prohibited place under his control. Motion was made to quash all the counts, because each failed to allege any game with cards was played on the premises. It simply alleges that defendant did unlawfully "permit a game" to be played upon the premises then and there belonging to him, etc. It is necessary that the indictment should charge the playing of some of the inhibited games. So far as the indictment is concerned, it may have been some game not prohibited by the statute. The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.