1. Jurisdiction — Order of Transfer — Name of Offense.
Where a case was transferred from the District Court to the County Court, and a plea to the jurisdiction was interposed because the order of transfer did not show the name and nature of the offense charged. Held: The law does not require that when an indictment is presented, into the District Court, that the nature or name of the offense charged against the defendant shall be entered upon the minutes of said court.
2. Keeping and Exhibiting Gaming Table and Bank — Indictment.
An indictment, which in one count charges the keeping and exhibiting of a gaming table and bank, is not duplicitous.
HENDERSON, JUDGE.
The appellant was tried and convicted under an indictment charging him with unlawfully keeping and exhibiting a certain gaming table and bank for the purpose of gaming. The appellant presented a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that the order of transfer was not sufficient, in that it did not show, from the minutes of the District Court, the name or nature of the offense charged against the appellant. The court overruled the plea to the jurisdiction. Appellant excepted, and assigns the action of the court as error. As we understand it, the law does not require that, when an indictment is presented into the District Court, there shall be put upon the minutes of the said court the nature or name of the offense charged against a defendant. See Code Crim. Proc., Arts. 415, 437; Bohannon v. State, 14 Tex.Crim. App., 271; Hasley v. State, Id., 217; Tyson v. State, Id., 388; Spear v. State, 16 Tex.Crim. App., 98; Steele v. State, 19 Tex.Crim. App., 425; De Olles v. State, 20 Tex.Crim. App., 145; Rowlett v. State, 23 Tex.Crim. App., 191. The motion to quash the indictment in this case was correctly overruled, and the indictment is not duplicitous, as contended. See Campbell v. State, 2 Tex.Crim. App., 187; Parker v. State, 13 Tex. Crim App., 213; Webb v. State, 17 Tex.Crim. App., 205. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Affirmed.