Lowrie v. State

Citations

• 43 Tex. 602

Syllabus

<p>1. Recognizance.—Though the code prescribes what shall be a sufficient designation in a recognizance of the accusation preferred against a defendant, by stating that it shall be sufficient if it state the name of the offense with which the defendant is charged, (Paschal’s Dig., art. 2731,) it omits to prescribe what shall be sufficient when an offense is not called by any defined name. A recognizance taken in a case where the offense is not known by any defined name, but is embraced by some generic term used in the code, as ‘‘gaming,” will be sufficient, if it contain a reasonably certain description of the offense charged so as to indicate the particular offense, or which one of a particular class of offenses is meant.</p> <p>2. Gaming—Charge of court.—A charge which assumes as matter of law that two games of cards played in two adjoining rooms, the door being open between the rooms while other persons were present who were not playing, would make one of the rooms in which defendant played a public place, is erroneous.</p> <p>3. Distinguished from Wheelock v. The State, 15 Tex., 253, 265, and Parker v. The State, 26 Tex., 207.</p>