Appellant was convicted of gaming. The information in this case charges defendant with “playing cards in a public place, to-wit: In a room over and attached to a house for retailing spirituous liquors, the said room being commonly used for gaming.” The recognizance recites that the appellant “stands charged with the offense of playing at a game with cards in a public place, to-wit: in a room in a certain house, said room being a place commonly resorted to by people for the purpose of gaming,” etc. The recognizance is fatally defective, in that it does not re- cite the offense charged in the information, and does not charge any offense. In order for the room mentioned *52 in the recognizance to have been a public place, it should have been charged that said room was over and attached to a house for retailing spirituous liquors, and commonly used for gaming. This was the offense set out in the information. See Miller v. State, post p.— For the reasons indicated, the appeal herein isdismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

HURT, P. J., absent.