Lowrie v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. M. 2). Ector. The recognizance entered into by the defendant on appeal designated the offense with which he was charged as “unlawful card-playing.” The assistant attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal because the paper which purported to be a recognizance did not state the offense for which appellant was indicted. The charge given by the court and the facts on which it was predicated are fully stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Roberts, Chief Justice.
The assistant attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal in this case because of the alleged defect in the recognizance in naming the offense of which the defendant had been convicted “ unlawful card-*603playing,” he having been convicted under an indictment charging that the defendant (with others) “ did play a game with cards in a certain art gallery, to wit, Whitley’s art gallery, then and there situate, the said art gallery being then and there a public place.”
“A recognizance is an undertaking entered into before the Supreme or District Court by the defendant in a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Parker v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1862
- Burch v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- Wheelock v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- Bledsoe v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hodges v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Arrington v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1883
- Massey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878
- McLaren v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878
- Morris v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.