<p>Throwing Dice—A Banking Game When—Betting on.</p> <p>Where, on a trial for betting on dice, the facts show that defendant threw the dice, took all bets, stood behind the table, “was one against the many,” he was a dealer and the game a banking game; and he could not be convicted of betting at his own banking game.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1896-01-29
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1980
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
Appellant was charged with and convicted of betting at dice at a place other than a qirivate residence. The facts show that he threw the dice, took all bets, stood behind the table, and was “one against the many.” In other words, he was the dealer; hence the game was a banking game. Bell v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep., 187. He could not, therefore, be convicted for betting at his own banking game. Askey v. State, 20 Tex. Crim. App., 443. The judgment is. reversed, and the cause remanded.
