Luckey v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. The appellant was convicted, at the Fall Term, 1853, of the District Court of Rusk county, of playing at a game with cards, on which money was bet, and fined $19 50, for which, with costs of suit, judgment was then rendered against him; and it was therefore ordered “ that he stand committed to prison until said fine and costs be paid.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Rusk. The appellant was convicted, at the Fall Term, 1853, of the District Court of Rusk county, of playing at a game with cards, on which money was bet, and fined $19 50, for which, with costs of suit, judgment was then rendered against him; and it was therefore ordered “ that he stand committed to prison until said fine and costs be paid.” He escaped from custody, but appearing in the same Court, in person, at the Fall Term, 1854, he was, on motion of the District Attorney, by order of the Court, remitted to custody (it •appearing to the Court that he had escaped, &c., and that…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
There can be no question, that the action of the Court, in committing the convict to prison until the fine and costs be paid, was legal and correct. The imprisonment, authorized by the Statute, is designed to enforce punishment where it is imposed by fine; and it can make no difference, as respects the mode of enforcing the punishment, whether the of-fence is punishable by fine and imprisonment, or by fine only. The law gives the same means of enforcing the pecuniary penalty in either case. The imprisonment, authorized by the Statute, is an actual imprisonment, within the four walls of the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Henderson v. DudleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
- In re McDonaldWyoming Supreme Court · 1893
- Houpt v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Dufek v. Harrison CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Nall v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.