State v. Huston
Texas Supreme Court
. Appeal from. Hacogdoches. An indictment was preferred against the appellant, containing a charge, that the defendant “ did play at a game with cards upon which money was then and there bet a certain public house,” &c. The defendant moved the Court to quash the indictment, because it did not charge the offence to have been committed at a place prohibited. The Court sustained the motion and the District Attorney appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
We think the Court did not err in its judg*246ment. A knowledge of the language of the statute enables us to perceive that the word “at” was omitted, no doubt by accident, after the word “bet.” We know that is the appropriate word to supply the omission. But were it not for our acquaintance with the subject, we might suppose the omission as well supplied by any other word which would make sense and render' the sentence complete. It is evident that some word has been casually omitted.. But, if we were at liberty to supply such an omission by intendment, there is nothing in the indictment which…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. DaughertyTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Ridgeway v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- State v. WilliamsonTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Scroggins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1886
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.