Randolph v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Walker. The appellant was convicted of betting “at a certain “ bank called rondo, the same being then and there exhibited for gaming.” The proof was that tiie defendant did bet at a game called rondo; that one man held the stake, and the bet was against his pile; that it was played with small balls on a billiard table.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Walker. The appellant was convicted of betting “at a certain “ bank called rondo, the same being then and there exhibited for gaming.” The proof was that tiie defendant did bet at a game called rondo; that one man held the stake, and the bet was against his pile; that it was played with small balls on a billiard table. Thomas Cotton, senior, being sworn, said that he understood this game; that it was called rondo; he had seen it played in New Orleans; that when one man held the stakes and the others bet, it was a hanking game; that it might he played so as not to he a banking…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The appellant was indicted and convicted under articles 1477 and 1486 of the digest. Tlie indictment charged that tlie defendant did bet “ at a certain bank called rondo, the same being then and there exhibited for gaming.”
It is objected to the sufficiency of tlie indictment that as “rondo” is not named in the enumeration of banking games prohibited by the statute, it cannot be included within tlie general terms “ any other gaming table or bank,” or “any other gambling device,” as one of the inhibited banks or games.
It is true that penal statutes must be construed strictly, and very great…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Low, Administrator v. FeltonTexas Supreme Court · 1892
- Gillock v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Ex parte SMITHNevada Supreme Court · 1910
- Zucarro v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1917
- In re HullIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.