*1 Rеports. Texas Criminal Legislature, can not we consider such complaints, having been made verdict, first time after the in the amended motion for new trial.
The other is that only complaint the court erred in not granting new on account of newly discovered evidence. This testimony would be of an nature if true, impeaching and as the con- State tested the motion introduced thereon, evidence the court after in the evidence thereto regard found hearing against overruled the We can not hold his he abused discretion in motion.. so doing. is affirmed. judgment Affirmed. 14, denied October [Rehearing 1914.—Reporter.] Howard v. Millner State.
No. 3200. Decided June 1914. Reheаring denied October 1914. 1.—Murder—Accomplice—Severance. murder, tried as an accomplice Where defendant was and both he and severance, co-defendant made asking affidavits for a agree could not trial, error, order there was no article.727, Code Criminal Procedure, in the action of the trial judge placing upon defendant trial.
3.—Same—Affidavit—Severance—Justice of the Peace. Where the affidavit the co-defendant severance conformity was in justice with the statute taken before a peace, of the the same was sufficient. Jeopar dy—Accessory—Accomplice. —Same—Former 3. counts, Where the indictment contained two one charging being him with accomplice, and .the being accessory, other with an an and on a former the jury both counts were submitted to who convicted him being an accom- again plice, and convicted being accomplice an on the same indictment, ignoring plea there was no error in of former jeopardy crime, accessory being the offense of which was an to the admitted accomplice. admissible he was an —Same—Evidence—Reproduction of Testimony. 4. - beyond jurisdiction Where one the State’s witnesses was dead, court, other there error in reproducing was no their testi- State, mony a former given Following trial. Robertson 63 Texas Grim. 216, and other cases. Principal. 5.—Same—Evidence—Declarations accomplice murder, Upon defendant as an error trial of was no principal admitting statement to a third evidence in party principal jail regard while said the offense of murder. —Same—Self-defense—Charge Court—Strength of Parties. 6. fully charged the court Where, of murder as evidence the issue principal, raised on the law of self-defense as v. The State. Millnee 1&U.1 charge error parties, there was court’s strength of the
of the relative charge self-defense. same in including the *2 Principаl. of 7.—Same—Evidence—Confessions murder, ad- accomplice to the court as Where, defendant an upon of properly in said crime and principal it was the of the confession mitted in evidence admitted, principal the purpose the the same to limited error. homicide, there was no unjustifiable of guilty was of Defendant. 8.—Same—Evidence—Acts refusing to no error accomplice, there an was murder Upon trial of as intercourse having illicit the deceased prove that had permit defendant negro woman. with a Diligence. Application—Want of —Same—Continuance—Fourth 9. application proper for continuance did not show Where defendant’s fourth incompetent, some immaterial and was absent diligence, and the was application. the overruling no error in there was Testimony. 10.—Same—Evidence—Irrelevant accomplice, permit- murder as an there was no error in not Upon trial of her wife the the of deceased was aware
ting the defendant to visited house of ill-fame. husband Exceptions. 11.—Same—Evidence—Bill the did not what witness would exceptions bill state answer the Where propounded, the same can not he considered on given to question the have besides, permitted to record that defendant was appeаred it from the appeal; fully on the issue testify involved. Attorney. of District 18.—Same—Evidence—Conduct in his on direct as as cross- admitted well Where defendant deceased, intercourse the he had illicit wife the examination dead man’s attorney, if he had not debauched the of the State’s error, consider wife, same. instructing jury not to the court was not reversible Principal. 13.—Same—Evidence—Declarations Where, accomplice, per- murder as an court declined to upon trial of principal had what told him testify as to defendant to mit from the homicide, appeared record meeting first after of their nothing that he knew about was dеfendant appeal the added ho permitted he desired additional fact transaction, show whole accomplice, not an there was testimony that was to his strength no reversible 14.—Same—Evidence—Motive. Where, accomplice, defendant contended that murder an trial of as just until intimate with the wife criminally had not been deceased homicide, permissible for to show it was the State a that motive time before short months; tending to show over several as intimacy had this extended the homicide.. —Same—Evidence—Circumstantial 15. Evidence. a ten dollar bill aid had secured defendant Where it was shown that trouble, permitting the State etc., thеre error a to in who was in friend watch was together defendant’s bill of denomination this show a of the of the crime. possession principal 16.—Same—Evidence—Bes Gestae. admitting error in there Upon trial of murder as deceased, this was principal had killed the of the
the declarations Reports. 75 Texas Criminal gestae, res the permitting testify, the witness to the wife of what deceased, co-defendant, defendant’s "the time. Testify. 17.—Same—Evidence—Allusion Defendant’s Failure to Where hy told at examining justice trial if peace so, right make a statement do desired to statement, not a reference was instructing to the fact that he did not make a the court that his failure to make statement not be used against besides, him and should jury; considered rea- objections occurred) son made by defendant that was no error. 18.—Same—Conduct of Attorney. District Where fact manifest that defendant could not call his co- witness, defendant as a attorney hearing statement of the district witness, the jury, this co-defendant not a competent would not
present error. *3 Jury—Impeaching 19.—Same—Misconduct of Verdict. verdict, juryman A will impeach allowed to his after has been discharged, by saying only agreed the guilty to verdict of on ground petition pardon. could for a for 20. —Same—Motion Mew Trial. exception Bills of which are not сontained in the motion for new court, adjournment of long after the trial will not filed appeal; on considered them, however, the did consider finds no and reversible error. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence. 21. Where, trial of murder as an the evidence was sufficient sustain the proper charge court, to conviction there was Sentence—Reforming Judgment. 22. —Same—Indeterminate assessing penalty twenty years Where the found a verdict of im- murder, and defendant have been prisonment for under the sentenced imprisonment law a term in to penitentiary sentence indeterminate twenty years, nor more than Appeals Court Criminal not less than five reform judgment, correct authority it is has to and so ordered. the District Court of Bee. Tried Appeal from before the below F. Hon. G. Chambliss. murder; conviction from
Appeal penalty, twenty years imprison- in the ment penitentiary. states case.
The opinion Baker, Patton Patton and A. and John J. J. Gus appellant. Lane, General, Assistant 0. E. Attorney for the State. in
HARPER, Judge. appeal —This second opin in reported ion on the former 72 Texas appeal being Crim. Rep., this trial 348. appellant 162 S. W. On convicted again murder, accomplice assessed being punishment in confinement twenty years State penitentiary. stated Presiding The the case is in the evidenсe opinion Millher State. líWA]
Judge Davidson Prendergast, concurring opinion Judge the former on therefore we do deem restate appeal, necessary facts. Sufficient that the evidence say the State showed criminally intimate with deceased’s wife; vis- appellant appellant absence, ited of deceased the camp Friday during remaining and he Friday admits he had sexual intercourse night, at the camp night, deceased absent deceased’s wife camp. from as a Pointer, -wasconvicted camp Eli .the principal, present who of deceased and Mrs. children Friday night, kept with Mrs. tent, morn- another while Gosnell. Saturday station, to the carried he took railway Pointer ing Gosnell returned train went Placedo. home Saturday, and on camp, buggy go he and Pointer got way back Pointer killed of the head shooting the camp horses, to the secured one Pointer of Gosnell’s camp, three times. went Placedo, house where also went getting boarding appel- daylight. lant about was stopping Mr. had talked to him Bailey State proved about Mrs. Gosnell a divorce, had in- getting Gosnell; about how much of the property from
quired get $30, tried to witness Saturday saying borrow at the aid friend who trouble escape; wanted $10 did borrow boarding house keeper, bill Pointer’s as was also was later secured from possession appellant’s Miller, tried a Mr. watch; get another rid employ man, *4 n which facts Gosnell, and there were other many circumstances advised, a find commanded en- would authorize offense, was committed Pointer to commit killing couraged between Pointer and agreement under pre-arranged appellant, evidence sustains the verdict. number of of in which large exception There are bills record in we will take them in the order voluminous, and which up is very in it is again record. In the first bill contended presented are trial before appellant in on Mrs. Gosnell that the court erred placing indicted Both and deceased’s wife were charged was tried. in of of Eli Pointer Mr. GosnelL killing an accomplice being tried, first she also filed that she be filed plea asking Appellant tried. un- severance, They being and asked be first of plea discretion in exercise of the conferred able to agree, on trial. first Articb order an placing him law entered defendants make of such if two or more 727 provides specifically trial, then of the presid- on the order and can agree such affidavit shall be tried. defendants in which the the order direct shall judge ing statute, and with the in conformity Mrs. of affidavit affidavits. to take laws is authorized under our of the peace a justice to the of former a plea jeopardy files next bill appellant the record It appears crime. an to the accessory being offense of Reports. 26 Texas Criminal {October, two counts, the indictment contains one with being him charging n the other an him an accomplice, charging being On accessory. submitted, former both counts were he was convicted an If being accomplice. convicted an a more serious being accessory, have been pre- sented, decisions seem hold that our when more than count one is in an contained conviction indictment, under count is either an counts. othеr But as acquittal convicted again an accomplice, same offense being for which he was convicted on the no former was admitted testimony which was not that he was admissible' to an reversible error is pre- bill, sented for in it in no other by this bill is to be attempted shown any testimony admitted tend might to show that he was an accessory crime and not admissible on the whether not he was issue of or accomplice.
The third bill relates to the introduction of Pete testimony Miller taken trial. On the former examining testi appeal this admissible, was held and we see no reason to mony our ruling. change this trial shows that last The evidence on time Miller was heard in is Frаnce, from he was and there suggestion he has ever set foot in the It United States. further again appears that he was sheriff who refugee justice, held the capias had made search been able to diligent hear or from him him since he last locate heard from France. We had ques State, of Whorton v. tion us the case 67 Texas Crim. Rep., W. State, and Robertson v. S. Texas Crim. Rep., 216, and therein discussed full the rules which a dead can be reproduced, or absent witness’ we see no reason decisions, it holding. under those reverse our And appearing dead, and had since the last trial Mr. died McBride was no error permitting former trial reproduced. that statements made by is contended Eli Pointer Lonnie
Again Smith and others in regard Mr. Gosnell anyone been admitted. We do think could or would contend if trial such Pointer himself was on statements would admissible in his nor introduce behalf, charged State jail them, *5 in this offense. The not and does with law would principal him to in behalf of his and if co-defendant, he permit testify him witness, if as a statements made testify called certainly when not admissible. dis witness are We incompetent State, cussed this v. 74 Texas question length Wyres Rep., Crim. 281, 1150, authorities, S. W. and cited the the reason giving for rule, the law as laid down White approvingly by Judge quoting State, Texas Crim. 186: “If can not Long App., v. testify to state facts and person, can he enable them to thereby how others. mn-1 Mim-hee The State. to derived him? be matters To would wholly permit abrogate law.” Art. C. G. P.
' court of self-defense his charge, The issue presented than it was that was on the relative contended error charge .other of the bio at the other strength parties, objection charge made, trial was and no out other error be attempted pointed court that de- therein. The instructed the if Pointer in jury killing offense, acted in no self-defense, ceased would be guilty should and be or if Pointer killed Gosnell acquitted; purpose for him, the robbing appellant. presented jury acquit Having all issues fully, and in a fairly way сounsel appellant’s no at the objections made time the submitted for to them charge their the bills refusal of the court to inspection, complaining the special no error. give charges requested As to the present objection that court erred in into consid- jury take- instructing merit, eration the relative strength of the is without for parties, teems Pointer was brought record evidence out by appellant man, small, sickly weak, such circumstances the young was authorized. charge it is contended erred in con-
Again, court admitting of Eli fession Pointer in evidence. This on in passed case,.and former in this the confession held to admissible. apрeal be It was on this trial necessary Pointer of un- prove guilty all justifiable show that fact homicide, testimony going if he admissible fact, was "on would be on this trial to that same prove do not we think that anyone contend Pointer can if the confession not be would admissible. Of it was course admis- this, sible Pointer’s and not to prove guilt, guilt prove as an it to permitted the court so used But it would the court present properly for limited the purpose admitted, which said instructing that same was jury admitted in purpose “for the evidence showing tending prove Pointer killed will George you same consider for other in the case.” The contention would purpose consider it for other ignore might instruction can purposes sustained of such in the face positive instructions. the record several there are bills of exception complaining erred in refusing permit the court George illicit relations Gosnell, deceased, negro had been woman. having had, furnish no justification If appel- lant and Pointer. facts would issue in this light Such shed held it inadmissible. correctly overruling eleventh bill of the action of the court in complains his fourth continuance. If Mrs. had been application she would not have been witness defendant. present competent statute behalf, her in his all prohibits nearly testifying for, other witnesses to continue resi- sought the case their admits This dences are unknown. case has been since pending February *6 Repoets. Texas Cbimiktal if in that locating has not succeeded in length time lie he has them, law, not used the or could not reason- diligence required by expect locate them the next term of court. to the wit- ably As by nesses whose residence he he does not show that all were gives, attendance at the former trial of or process this any them that trial attendance been issued for since in time to secure their at this but if due had been used secure attend- trial, diligence testimony of those witnesses their ance whose residence is given, states expects admissible or material? Pointer’s father he By than Eli was a older man, year appellant. prove grown Hurst’s That would be to no the trial the case. Mr. material issue on not a witness admissible, not testimony would as Mrs. Gosnell day deceased, Gosnell, in the case. The fact that drinking fact, is an killed is all the proven by testimony, undisputed cumulative, and be but Fagan witness would The continuance. furnishes no ground application the fourth were facts he states Mrs. Simmons expects prove by George proven record, is a fact the State her by husband, amply proven by by and such the State were and could facts were relied The in the case. havе been beneficial to defendant on issue any wife, from his Max, of Albert as to appellant separated why record. admissible on issue made this been witness as to named, other witnesses one character appellant, his hand in fact that Pointer at one time placed other a witness a con- ground when he woke furnishes no Small’s, his, pocket, up, issues and the court did under the involved in tinuance the application. err overruling have been is no merit in the contention There husband that Mrs. was aware her Gornell prove permitted husband Mrs. Gosnell was aware that her permitted his murder. Gosnell this did authorize Mrs. libertine, but but this would husband, from her separate grounds have had may into to killed by to be entered have him authorize a conspiracy never Pointer discloses he done so far as record Pointer. him, nor gave or excuse to kill cause or injury, gave any Pointer, so. if he did do conspire ground No, he was not permitted in bill contends Appellant done, “What was if you following question: answer Friday night all?” referring between ¡remember, you when he visited Gosnell’s camp. evening on Saturday homicide to testify: “I that the permitted appellant discloses record Gosnell, on that to kill night George Eli Pointer procure no effort Gosnell, for the purpose killing Pointer money offered Eli never I at all. gave I never about nothing mentioned never Eli not offer cartridges. I did bits with which buy two Pointer kill did I at the same dollars to nor five hundred Pointer with. fees if he attorney’s got caught up that would pay I tell him him. not offer him or even to I did give to offer had anything never I *7 Mimzneb Tete State. l&lb.] (cid:127) Eli Pointer on that five hundred dollars for the give night purpose his him killing George procure I did not promise Gosnell. tell him him, case he did the and I did not
lawyers defend killing I he would that Mrs. Gosnell and would swear him out of the trouble Gosnell; into not mentioned get George was killing anything at about about the Gosnell all. There mentioned killing nothing tent, death Gosnell next After had Pointer morning. gone to not go go I did Mrs: Mrs. separate Gosnell from Gosnell or to his tent him and wake and have a with him there conversation up about the death at Gosnell. did not mention Eli I time to any Pointer better kill Gosnell or kill him had Gosnell would if he not. I at friendly did Gosnell. I never time said any Pointer, Eli am ‘Eli, the best friend on you earth, I have and you better take the five hundred dollars and him.’ kill said go and I never don’t ‘If he will he as sure to kill you you as-we are did both I living.’ Eli tell Pointer to kill Gosnell and when did to get on horse me in Placedo, meet there was never about nothing at between any time, never me and Eli Pointer or Mrs. Gosnell nor anybody between and Pete else, me Miller.” The does not hill what answer the witness state would have to the given pro- but in bill it is said pounded, desired tо testify neither he nor Mrs. Gosnell had made any get effort to Pointer to kill above, As shown the court did Gosnell. permit appellant testify on that issue. the next By bill it shown that the district attorney asked appellant “he had the dead man’s if debauched wife.” The court promptly objection sustained appellant’s to the question, instructed consider it. As on direct as well as on he had cross-examination admitted had illicit intercourse with de- wife, under circumstances ceased’s the bill presents Pointer proven
As State had killed Gosnell late Saturday at and that he once left and went to evening, house where hoarding him, called for stopping, him appellant gave breakfast, lake, then him across the carried hiding, where he inwas all what Pointer testify desired to told but time, so, him to do but permit permit the court declined to did him to testify: Simmons’ that Pointer at Geo. after morning daylight, “I between saw I matter was arrested six and seven I guess. evening, Sunday after was killed I did not Saturday. know on day Gosnell talked to Pointer that Sunday when I was dead. I morning Gosnell Eli Sunday morning know Pointer killed George did not Barber, money Shelley got I some I Gosnell. time did not know that Barber I Gosnell had talking Shelley George dead. that Gosnell was Pointer, Eli nor I did know been killed Pointer was or at that make his making attempting to Gosnell or murdering from the other I charge pаrty. escape that Pointer mur- least for the dodging not the idea offense of else. or I did anybody learn George George Gosnell dering Kepobts. Texas
SO Cbiminal dead until after was arrested. learned Gosnell I of his death I o’clock evening. like five I death of something Sunday learned This arrested. was the first when I was time I knew of the It death of Gosnell.” from the record else everyone about appears there seems to have known that Gosnell had been killed except appel- lant, but be as is seen may, permitted transaction, the additional fact knew testify nothing says to his desired to would added no strength that he was not an tending accоmplice show *8 crime.
As that not contended he was intimate with appellant criminally Mrs. Gosnell a just homicide, until short the was time before per- missible for the that State to this over show had extended intimacy months, several as to show a homicide, motive for the as this tending with the testimony, together testimony of Mr. to show Bailey, tended that and Mrs. Gosnell were desirous relation- appellant the assuming wife, of husband and the in the the ship was thing way deceased, Mr. Gosnell.
There was no error in it to that the sheriff permitting proven a ten dollar secured bill from Pointer while The evidence for jail. shows that State was to aid a appellant money trying borrow who in trouble to out thаt get friend was secure country; he did a Simmons, ten dollar bill from Mr. Geo. that a fact bill denomination, together "watch, was appellant’s in possession was a Pointer, cogent circumstance in the case. Eli Pointer told Charlie was res Fagan»
What gestae of the killing, court did not admissible. The permit witness to what at the while it time, was Mrs. Gosnell improper repeat forms, in different not yet were question questions the nature stretch they tend prejudicial, imagination show that had any least to connection appellant killing. with the circumstances this connection cogent are that Pointer admitted that deceased; killed left he had he almost imme- Fаgan camp horses, on one of deceased’s and the next place we hear of him diately next is at he daylight morning appellant’s house boarding inquir- him, and ing place appellant proceeds a place concealment, and discovered he when had appellant’s watch, ap- to aid had borrowed money friend parently appellant who was in from the escape country. trouble who was
Pete Miller was the witness shown to be in his France, and trial was at the examining admitted in testimony given evidence. that Miller stated Pete Saturday night, the evening him to homicide, go asked with him the railroad Eli Pointer on train station, he that expected stating night. Ap- stand, and testified that denied this on while he pellant and Pete that night, the Plaeedo go depot they did Miller went Simmons; and Geo. he beer for themselves did not get go there did not tell Pointer, he Pete Miller that to get was his Milliter The State. lMJf.l
mission. On cross-examination the State asked him if he was present testified; when Miller if was not attorney present, and if not hear testify, he did Miller all of which admitted; then asked him attorney district did ask why Miller if their themselves, mission beer for buy Simmons, George Pointer. instead of to meet Eli going only reason appellant gave was that he had and that just employed then attorney, did not inform his had attorney gone Placedo station to beer. buy was asked if he told Appellant justice of peace so, make statement if he right desired to do he answered that he was so told. The bill does not disclose that appellant whether or not did a statement, asked make but the objection is that as to whether or not he was told he could make a desired, statement if he a reference the fact he did statement. says attorney make The court district told he could ask as if he simple witness question, he had statement, right informed to make a it will right end there. then asked to instruct Appellant regard the court jury matter, gotten contended time, not make at that apрellant did a statement court, instruct “That failure appellant’s did request, jury: *9 to make a statement all could not him as against be used evidence at of his or guilt innocence on this trial. not it as being You will consider in Had evidence.” the fact that not at that time appellant testify did been elicited over it error. appellant’s objection, perhaps would present But the court very any sustained promptly appellant’s objection such adduced, got and if the fact that before the jury had trial, not at the appellant testified reason of examining objections circumstances, the made and under such being appellant, when thе court do the not consider the we jury matter, instructed not think reversible error. presents in,
In the attorney condition this record' is the fact that the district in that stated the of the Mrs. Gosnell not a hearing jury competent witness, fact made manifest would not present so, witness, State not do not her as a did appellant could call hurtful to appellant. this could be certainly in favor The fact that swears he was first one the jurors assessing verdict of guilty of an acquittal, agreed only in the State the confinement years penitentiary punishment twenty given after the other had him that if appellant told jurymen if he himself they he had served ten behaved punishment, years, аfter a new in a for a join ground for petition pardon, presents is thus verdict after trial. A juryman impeach allowed his. discharged. has been although We have discussed each of bills of exception, appellant’s motion in bills in the the claimed errors the were many presented fact, grounds new trial. In in the motion for trial only new the for court his fourth for are that the erred in alleged overruling application Reports. Texas Criminal as the of former jeopardy continuance; grant plea refusing in an court accessory; the erred being count charging McBride, J. to be testimony of W. who was shown the in permitting Miller, last of Pete who was in France the dead, the court erred in from, to the reproduced; was heard time he in anyone conversations he had with to give any permitting appellant herein; the in not permitting court erred charge reference them,while was in jail witnesses that Eli Pointer told to con- charged offense; jury because court authorized court erred and because strength sider relative parties, in and because give Hos. refusing special charges ver- the fact that a that he agreed affidavit juryman for dict when in pardon the others aid him. getting promised nine only grounds after had served ten years, in the alone matters, motion the above and which embracing only on new court was called motion to consider in on the passing two Yet, trial. 14th, March some adjourned on having twenty- adjourned, months after court files appellant prepares three matters bills some of them exception, up setting trial. court was the motion given chance to act for new This is trial fair to trial motion new court. hardly relied on to secure everything new should be presented we court, As future will done. hope have almost we received to life punishment equivalent imprisonment, each one of his in fairness exception, yet reviewed bills of every were the trial we have considered matters as judge, as to him a new presented grounds why grant he should matters these these ruling. alone he based While some of minor shown, bills complained of some herein may, present errors, them influence or bear- none of yet possibly crime of on whether or not accomplice ing record, Gosnell. As said fact murdering by appellant him, in our evi- opinion manifest Pointer killed plainly dence, only, justified while circumstantial finding *10 and did; when it knew that he advised happen offense, the commission of the and when Pointer Pointer in encouraged he at once fled appellant. killed is affirmed. judgment
Affirmed. It 24, case was June 1914. DAVIDSOH, Judge.—This submitted have record, a therefore I not had the timе read the very is large record. I no as to involved. questions express opinion
ON REHEARING. 1914; October HARPER, Judge. in his —Appellant motion for in this rehearing court but reiterates his motion for new trial filed in trial court. v. The State. Sloan 1ÍV4-] Appellant opinion. on in the original passed All these were grounds sup- no authorities rehearing; cites for on his motion files brief of cited, none were originally other than contentions of his
port reversal should necessitate a think, grounds show which, we fact however, called, is attention of this case. Our sen- indeterminate the terms of ignored sentence passing term imprison- definite fixed of law, a tence and passed been done, but not have he should ment. This less in the penitentiary imprisonment to a term of sentenced As this court is authorized twenty five more than years. nor than that sentence judgment is ordered and correct teform judgments, to hereafter read trial court be so reformed as than more a less five nor of confined in penitentiary period will be entered herein. years, than so judgment decreeing twenty The motion for overruled. rehearing
Overruled. Harley v. The State. Sloan No. 3241. Decided October 1914. Remaining —Gaming—Sufficiency of the Evidencerr-Knowingly 1. at Gaming—General of Verdict. Place cards, Where, 'playing game going of a of into at game of
knowingly remaining place being played, where a cards were occupied family, to con- private residence the evidence insufficient a vict defendant find him count, jury "to first but to authorize the sufficient being present, knowing game of of cards guilty of offense sustained, be- played at the verdict place, were conviction State, 48 Texas Grim. 35. ing general. Distinguishing Fallwell v. —Same—Evidence—Agreement—Charge of Court. 2. were State and gaming, Where several defendants defendants, all the' admission agreed submit the cases of the defendant of re- against one the defendants evidence which was admissible (cid:127) error, confine the same requested instruction to versiblе absence against whom it admitted. to a certain defendant Residence—Family—Sufficiency of the Evidence. —Same—Private 3. home, and, sanctity protect is to object of statute therefore, family prosecution, and where from exempts the members family, the defendants were not constituent bers of members all mem- home, family yet were absent game could not play at a thereon, money betting permission cards gage remained to en- although may have had dominoes, game least, defendant, went into where place in such such gambling place, while took conviction sustained. 4. Testify. —Same—Allusion to Defendant’s Failure n argument Where the of State’s counsel was or indirect direct reference the failure of defendant to a reversal as would necessitate there was reversible error. *11 Court Hall. County Tried
Appeal below Hon. D. Bird. Jno.
Vol 75 Crim.-3.