Lookhart v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from San Augustine. The appellant was indicted under the 72d section of the act “concerning crimes and misdemeanors.” (Hart. Dig-., art. 568.) The indictment charging that the defendant “ did permit a game with “cards, upon which money was then and there het, to he played iu'his house, “ which said house was then and there a public house, aud was then and “there a room occupied by said Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from San Augustine. The appellant was indicted under the 72d section of the act “concerning crimes and misdemeanors.” (Hart. Dig-., art. 568.) The indictment charging that the defendant “ did permit a game with “cards, upon which money was then and there het, to he played iu'his house, “ which said house was then and there a public house, aud was then and “there a room occupied by said Wm. Lockhart, and was then and there “a common gaming room, adjoining and connected with a room used in “the town of San Augustine, by one Samuel Jordan aud one William T. “White, as a house for…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The counsel in this court has declined, and we think very properly, to argue the assignment of errors in behalf of the appellant. The conviction was manifestly correct. The indictment describes the offense more circumstantially aud with greater minuteness of detail than was, perhaps, necessary. But this cannot be cause of complaint by the defendant. It is not perceived that any valid objection can be urged'to its sufficiency. The ground which appears to liave been mainly relied on below was, that the house or room where the offense was laid in the indictment was not a public house within the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. BaysingerIndiana Supreme Court · 1979
- Peachey v. Boswell, MayorIndiana Supreme Court · 1960
- Lasko v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
- Comer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1888
- Adims v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.