Stockholm v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1888 |
| Citation | 7 S.W. 338 |
| Parties | STOCKHOLM v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Orange county; W. H. FORD, Judge.
The indictment in this case, which charged the appellant, P. D. Stockholm, Jr., with the theft of a cow, the property of William McFaden, in Jefferson county, Texas, was presented in the district court of Jefferson county, but, upon the defendant's application, the venue was changed to Orange county. The trial in the latter county resulted in the conviction of the appellant, and the assessment against him of a term of two years in the penitentiary. The proof for the state, elicited from two witnesses to the main fact, establishes that, on the day alleged in the indictment, the said two witnesses surprised the appellant and one C. H. Patridge cutting up the carcass of a cow which they had recently killed. Investigation disclosed that the cow was the property of William McFaden. It was between 9 and 10 o'clock on the morning of January 26, 1885, when the appellant and Patridge were discovered butchering the carcass. Several witnesses for the defense testified that the reputation of George White (the main witness for the state) for truth and veracity was infamous. At least two other witnesses for the defense located the defendant, at the time of the alleged butchery of the carcass, at a point distant from that at which the witnesses for the state located the said butchery. A number of witnesses for the state, in rebuttal, testified that White's reputation for truth and veracity was irreproachable.
H. W. Greer, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
The defense asked a continuance of the case on account of the absence of the leading counsel, Hal W. Greer, which was denied, and this was urged as error. It is not made to appear, in the motion for a new trial, or otherwise, that any injury resulted to appellant, he having had the services of two attorneys. This being so, the refusal of the continuance was not error. Boothe v. State, 4 Tex. App. 217. The appellant and one Patridge were jointly indicted, and, at a former term, a severance being granted, appellant was convicted and Patridge acquitted. The motion for a new trial in appellant's case was supported by the affidavit of Patridge, and was granted. Upon this trial the defense offered in evidence this supporting affidavit of Patridge, it having been shown that he was dead. This evidence the court rejected, and this is urged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Parker
... ... Melendy, 36 Iowa 166; State v. Lewis, 74 Mo ... 222; State v. Walker, 69 Mo. 274; State v ... Loe, 98 Mo. 609. Sickness of counsel is good ground for ... continuance. State v. Bailey, 94 Mo. 311; ... Thompson v. Thornton, 41 Cal. 626; State v ... Stegner, 33 N.W. 340; Stockholm v. State, 7 ... S.W. 338. When leading counsel is sick, and counsel in ... attendance is not prepared to go on with the trial, a ... continuance should be granted. Shultz v. Moore, 1 ... McLean, 520; Allen v. State, 10 Ga. 85; ... Rhode Island v. Mass., 11 Pet. 226; 3 Am. & Eng ... Ency. of ... ...
-
Roberts v. State
...new trial on that account. Mixon v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 69, 35 S. W. 394; Ryan v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S. W. 288; Stockholm v. State, 24 Tex. App. 601, 7 S. W. 338; Booth v. State, 4 Tex. App. 216; Steinhauser v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 48 S. W. 506; Self v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 47 S. ......
-
Newborn v. State
...a written statement theretofore made by the witness under some other circumstances. Chumley v. State, 20 Tex. App. 547; Stockholm v. State, 24 Tex. App. 598, 7 S. W. 338. There are a number of bills of exception complaining of the examination of said witness Elmer Smith by the state's attor......
-
Coleman v. State
...this ground was not error. Mixon v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 35 S. W. 394; Ryan v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S. W. 288; Stockholm v. State, 24 Tex. App. 598, 7 S. W. 338. In his motion for new trial, appellant alleged that one R. O. Collier, who was introduced by the state, and testified as......