
    Dawson v. The State.
    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.
    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.
    
      Ochiltree Jennings, for appellant.
    
      Attorney General, for appellee.
   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.  