Day v. State

Citations

• 27 Tex. Ct. App. 143
• 11 S.W. 36
• 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 18

Syllabus

<p>Í. Gaming—Indictment.—It is not essential to the sufficiency of an indictment to charge the offense of betting at a game played with dice, that it shall allege that the accused played the game with another or bet with another person.</p> <p>3. Same—Betting at a Game Plated With Dice—Distinct and Continuous Offenses.—To bet at any game played with dice, toy whatever name the game be known, is an offense under the law of this State. And each separate act of betting at such a game constitutes a distinct offense. The consecutive throwing of dice from nightfall until day break does not constitute a continuous game, and the consecutive betting on the different throws does not constitute a continuous offense.</p> <p>8. Same—Evidence—Accomplice—'Witness.—-A witness, to be incompetent to testily in behalf of a defendant upon the ground that he was under indictment for the same offense, must appear to have been indicted for participation in the very same criminal act for which the-defendant is being tried. It will not suffice to disqualify him that he is indicted for a similar offense. The defense in this ease offered a witness by whom to prove an alibi. The witness was rejected, upon the State's motion, upon the ground that he was charged by a separate indictment with the same offense. The onus of establishing incompepeteney by showing that the indictment against the witness covered the same criminal act for which the defendant was on trial rested on the State; and, the State failing to establish that fact in this ease, the presumption obtained in favor of the competency of the witness, and the ruling of the court was error.</p>