Alsup v. State
Decision Date | 09 December 1896 |
Parties | ALSUP v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Karnes county; S. F. Grimes, Judge.
John Alsup was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
F. R. Graves, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and given 25 years in the penitentiary.
The indictment charged that appellant murdered Robert Thomas. Upon the trial a number of witnesses swore that the deceased's name was Bob Thomas. There was no proof that he bore the name of Robert. Counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence fails to support the allegation that the defendant killed Robert Thomas,—that proof that his name was Bob will not suffice. Upon the trial the state introduced as a witness Hon. S. F. Grimes, the presiding judge, who swore that he was familiar with names of persons and contractions thereof; that the name Bob was usually and ordinarily an abbreviation or contraction of the name Robert, and persons who were called Bob were usually named Robert. The objections urged to this testimony were—First, that it came from the trial judge, and was calculated to influence the jury unduly against him; and, second, that the names of persons were not the subject of expert testimony, but a matter of general knowledge. "Jack is an abbreviation of John; Rich, of Richard." See Bish. Cr. Proc. § 689. If Jack is an abbreviation of John, evidently Bob is an abbreviation of Robert; and proof that the deceased's name was Bob Thomas meets the allegation that the appellant had killed Robert Thomas. In Walter v. State, 105 Ind. 589, 5 N. E. 737 et seq., Chief Justice Niblack, on this question, says: . In the cited case the charge was a sale to Jack Murphy, and the proof showed that his name was John Murphy. Held, it did not constitute a variance. See, also, Wilkerson v. State, 13 Mo. 95. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
H.R.&C. Co. v. Smith
...S. D. 460,26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1207, as to Ed and Edward; Galliano v. Kilfoy, 29 P. 416, 94 Cal. 86, as to Rose and Rosa; Alsup v. State, 38 S. W. 174, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 535, as to Bob and Robert; and, more doubtful, Goodell v. Hall, 37 S. E. 725, 112 Ga. 435, as to Eliza and Elizabeth. To the ......
-
Scott v. State
...the other, the use of one for the other is not a material misnomer. Evans v. State, 509 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Alsup v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 535, 38 S.W. 174 (1896). A commonly known diminutive or abbreviation is sufficient to identify a person in the absence of evidence indicating th......
-
Evans v. State
...to be the same the use of one for the other is not a material misnomer. See Goode v. State, 2 Tex.App. 520 (1877); 6 Alsup v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 535, 38 S.W. 174 (1896); 40 Tex.Jur.2d 379--380, § 8, Names, and compare State Bank & Trust Co. v. W. O. Horn & Bro., 295 S.W. 698 (Tex.Civ.App.1......
-
Ex parte Elliott
...the other, the use of one for the other is not a material misnomer. Evans v. State, 509 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Alsup v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 535, 38 S.W. 174 (1896). A commonly known diminutive or abbreviation is sufficient to identify a person in the absence of evidence indicating th......