State v. Flores

Texas Supreme Court July 1, 1870

State v. Flores, 33 Tex. 444 (Tex. 1870)

Walker

Opinion of the Court

Walker, J.

This was an indictment for keeping a gaming hoard. The motion to quash should have been overruled. (See Brosshard v. The State, 25 Sup. Texas Reps., 209.)

*445The indictment was good without the signature of the foreman of the grand jury, according to The State v. Powell, 24 Texas, 135. The judgment helow is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name: State v. Jose Flores
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. An indictment, founded on Article 2055, Paschal’s Digest, which charged that the defendant “did wilfully and unlawfully permit a gaming bank, to-wit, a monte bank, to be dealt for the purpose of gaming, in a house under the control of him,” was good ; and it was error to quash it for insufficiency. (Brosshard v. The State, 25 Supplement Texas Reports, 209, ci.ed by the court.) 2. That the signature of the foreman of the grand jury was not upon the indictment was no sufficient objection to it. The indictment was good without it. (The State v. Powell, 2d Texas, cited by the court.)