Comer v. State
Citations
- 26 Tex. Ct. App. 509
- 10 S.W. 106
- 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 216
Syllabus
<p>Í. Playing Cards in a Public Place—Indictment.—It is a well established rule of pleading that “if several offenses are embraced in the-same general definition, and are punishable in the same manner, they are not distinct offenses, and may be charged in the same count of the-indictment.” The indictment in this case charged that the accused unlawfully played a game of cards at a “tavern and inn, and in a room-in and attached to said tavern and inn.” Held sufficient, and not obnoxious to the objection that it is uncertain and duplicitous.</p> <p>2. Same—Public Place—Tavern and Inn.—Article 355 of the Penal Code, which prohibits the playing of cards in a public place, expressly enumerates taverns and inns as such public places, but declares that “a private room in an inn or tavern does not come within the definition of public place, unless such room be commonly used for gaming.'</p> <p>3. Same—Definitions—Pact Case.—In statutory parlance, an inn, tavern or hotel means a place for the general entertainment and lodging of all travelers and strangers who apply, paying suitable compensation,, A hotel “guest” is one who lives at board or lodging in a hired room, and “lodging” is a place of rest for a night, or a residence for a time— a temporary habitation. An unappropriated guest room in an inn, tavern or hotel, is a public place, even as to one who, as a guest, occupies another or other rooms in the said inn, tavern or hotel. See the statement of the ease for evidence held sufficient to support a conviction for playing cards in a public place.</p> <p>4. Same—Charoe oe the Court in Misdemeanor Cases.—Errors in the charge of the court in misdemeanor cases, Unless fundamental, will not be revised on appeal, in the absence of exception or requested instructions.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “We do not think that one might circumvent the law [pertaining to ‘gambling houses’] by the simple expediency of extending invitations”
- \We do not think that one might circumvent the law [pertaining to `gambling houses'] by the simple expediency of extending invitations\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Tooke v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1908-07-08· cited 60×
- Odle v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1940-04-17· cited 20×
- In Re SteinkeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1969-12-12· cited 15×
- Bradley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1911-03-08· cited 7×
- People v. SmithNew York Court of General Session of the Peace· 1889-05-15· cited 3×
- Goodwin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1913-06-04· cited 1×
- Steinke v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1969-12-12· cited 1×
- Opinion No.Texas Attorney General Reports· 1995-05-02
- Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionTexas Attorney General Reports· 1995-07-02
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.