Scott v. State

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of betting at dice. A jury was waived and the case was tried before the court.

The only question raised in the motion for new trial is based upon the alleged insufficiency of the testimony to support the finding of the court. The testimony is from one witness only, and to the effect that the witness Smith, appellant and two others, Cole and Simmons, were present at a game of craps, and all bet money on the game. Quoting the language of the witness: “We all bet money on the game. I suppose Walter Scott bet on the game. We played with dice. The…