
    Tousey and another v. The State.
    A judgment cannot be sustained on a bond in the nature of a recognizance to answer “a charge of gaming.” (Note 40.)
    Note 10. — ¡McDonough v. The State, 10 T., 293.
    Appeal from Houston. The appellauts 'were sureties for one Benjamin Fry in a bond in the nature of a recognizance, entered into by them with said Fry for the appearance of the latter' at the District Court to answer the State of Texas u upon a charge of gaming.” The accused failing to appear as required by the terms of the recognizance, scire facias was served upon his sureties. There was j udgment against the sureties, and they brought a writ of error.
    
      A. P. Wiley and T. J. Jennings, for appellants.
   Wheeler, J.

Tills case cannot he distinguished in principle from the eases of Dailey v. The State, 4 Tex. R., 417; The State v. Cotton, 6 Id.; and Cotton v. The State, 7 Id. Upon the principle of those cases the judgment must he reversed and the cause dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.  