State v. Prewitt
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Cass. This was an appeal by the State from the judgment of ■the court sustaining a motion to quash an indictment. Tlie indictment charged •that the defendant “ did bet at a certain game known and called rondo, then ‘“and there exhibited, and played ou a certain gaming table called rondo, the “said game of rondo then and there being a gambling device,” &c.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass. This was an appeal by the State from the judgment of ■the court sustaining a motion to quash an indictment. Tlie indictment charged •that the defendant “ did bet at a certain game known and called rondo, then ‘“and there exhibited, and played ou a certain gaming table called rondo, the “said game of rondo then and there being a gambling device,” &c. I. The first objection anticipated is that “ no indictment will lie under article 5G6 for betting on any gambling table organic not designated by name in article 565.” A conjecture to that effect was intimated in Crow v. The…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The objections urged to the sufficiency of this iudictmc-ut are •substantially the same as those relied ou for reversal of the judgment in the •case of Estes v. The State, just decided. In that case they were considered .and disposed of in reference to the argument of counsel in both cases, and their examination need not be hero repeated.
The words in the indictment characterizing the offense as a gambling device may bo rejected as surplusage; and we need only add that for the reasons stated in the case referred to, we think the indictment in this case clearly sufficient, and are of opinion…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Blair v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1870
- Wardlow v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1885