
    William Needham v. The State
    Appeal from Harris County.
    Where a party was indicted under the act of 3d February, 1845, for keeping a ten pin alley without having paid the license tax imposed thereon, by the act of 5th February, 1842, held, that it was not necessary, under the statute referred to, for the indictment to charge that the alley was kept for play, or that playing took place or was permitted thereon.
    The appellant was indicted for keeping a ten pin alley without having obtained license therefor, and was found guilty. A motion was made in arrest of judgment on the grounds: *
    1st. That the indictment did not charge that the defendant kept, used, or in any manner occupied or employed the ten pin alley as his vocation or calling.
    2d. That it did not charge the defendant with exhibiting the ten pin alley for play, or permittipg playing thereon, or that any persons did play upon it, for or without pay.
    The motion was overruled and judgment entered accordingly.
    Buchley, for appellant.
    The statutes requiring a license to be obtained for keeping a nine or ten pin alley class them among games. The indictment, therefore, should have charged that the alley in question was kept for gaming, without which it was no violation of the law to keep one without license. 1 Laws Texas, 261, sec. 6; Laws 1810, p. 17, sec. 14.
    
      The indictment should have also charged that it was played upon. The law intended to require a license upon the game of ten pins, and not upon the the alley where no game was played; for, if kept by the owner without being used, no other tax could be collected thereon than would be required on any other species of property of equal value.
    Harris, Attorney General, for appellee,
    • contended that the laws referred to required a license tax to be paid on ten pin alleys, without saying that they were to be kept for gaming, or to play games upon. He cited 4 Laws of Texas, 107, to show that the terms “ to keep, to exhibit or to carry on ” such a gambling table, were used by the statute as synonymous.
   Lipsoomb, J.

The appellant was indicted in the district court, for keeping a nine pin alley, without having first paid the license tax, under the statute of the 3d February, 1845. By this act, it is provided: “ That mvy person or persons mho shall violate any law or laws, reguirimg the payment of license taxes, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on i/ndietment by the grand jury, and eon-motion by the petit jv/ry, shall forfeit and, pay such sum of money as shall be double the amount of the license tax, which such person or persons so offending were liable to pay.” The act of congress of the 5th February, 1842, imposes a license tax of fifty dollars on nine pin alleys, without expressing the qualification of their being kept for play. It is, however, contended that the indictment should have averred that the alley was kept for play, to subject the proprietor to a liability for the tax; that, although this qualification is not in express terms imposed by the act, yet it must be so understood; the intention of the legislature would, perhaps, have been les3 certain, if the expressions that are said to have been implied were not used when applied to other objects from which a revenue was to be raised. In the same act, a tax is imposed on watches with the express qualification that it was on those kept for use;' the same qualification is expressed in the tax on clocks.

The tax on pleasure carriages of every description is imposed without regard to their being kept for use; so the license on billiard tables, leaving no doubt as to the articles taxed with, or those without the qualification. In the construction of the act, we must believe the legislature meant neither more nor less than the plain and obvious import of the language employed; and when the condition is imposed in some cases and omitted in others, we must understand the distinction to be intended. There is certainly as much reason in imposing tbe license on the proprietors of billiard tables and nine pin alleys, regardless whether they were kept for play or not, as to impose a tax on a pleasure carriage whether kept for use or not. The intention to tax the latter has never been questioned, and the owner of a ten pin alley is not entitled to a more liberal construction. The indictment in this case is substantially in the words of the law, and it never has been held that it was necessary to contain more.

We are therefore of'the opinion that there was no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.  