TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dawson v. State

Dawson v. State, 6 Tex. 347 (1851)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1851
Judges
Ivheeler
Citations
6 Tex. 347
Cited by 9
Headnotes
Where the defendant was indicted under the act of 1840 “to suppress gaming,” and was tried, lound guilty, and fined under the 07th section of the act of 1818 concerning crimes and punishments: Held, That the latter act in its application to this ease was not an ex post facto law, and that the conviction was legal. (Note 63.) Note 63.—The State v. Manning, 14 T., 402.
Summary
Appeal from Cherokee. The appellant was indicted at the Fall Term, 1848, of the District Court, under tiie 1st section of the act of 1840, “to suppress gaming.” At tiie Spring Term, 1849, he was tided, found guilty, and fined ten dollars under tiie 67th section of the act of 1848, entitled “An act concerning crimes and misdemeanors.” Tiie defendant moved in arrest of judgment. The court overruled the motion and the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ivheeler

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

IVHEELER, J.

The act of 1848, as applied to this ease, did not make an act innocent at tiie time of its passage criminal; it did not aggravate an offense and make it greater than when committed; it did not inflict a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; it did not authorize a conviction upon less evidence than the law required at the time of the commission of tiie offense, consequently it is not in reference to the offense charged an ex post facto law. (Holt v. The State, 2 Tex. R., 363.)

The conviction was legal and correct, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1866–1867: 21876–1877: 11880–1881: 11886–1887: 11888–1889: 11890–1891: 11892–1893: 11986–1987: 118662026peak 1866 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McInturf v. State20 Tex. Ct. App. 335 (1886)
  2. Mrous v. State21 S.W. 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 1893)
  3. Winburn v. State28 Fla. 339 (1891)
  4. State v. McLennen16 P. 879 (Or. 1888)
  5. Botello v. State720 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986)
  6. Burt v. State39 Ala. 617 (1866)

Most recent

  1. Botello v. State720 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986)
  2. Mrous v. State21 S.W. 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 1893)
  3. Winburn v. State28 Fla. 339 (1891)
  4. State v. McLennen16 P. 879 (Or. 1888)
  5. McInturf v. State20 Tex. Ct. App. 335 (1886)
  6. Day v. City of Clinton6 Ill. App. 476 (1880)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list