Lancaster v. State

Citations

• 43 Tex. 519

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment—Gaming.—An indictment charging that defendant did “keep and exhibit a gaming bank called monte for the purpose of gaming” is not bad for duplicity.</p> <p>2. Indictment.—Where an indictment charges conjunctively acts constituting the offense which are stated disjunctively in the statute, it is not bad for duplicity when the same statute makes the two acts, each connected with the same transaction, indictable; each act is considered as representing a stage in the same offense.</p>