Atchley v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1909 |
| Citation | 120 S.W. 1010 |
| Parties | ATCHLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
G. W. Atchley was convicted of posting anonymous notices threatening personal violence, and he appeals. Reversed, and prosecution dismissed.
Hart, Mahaffey & Thomas and R. H. Jones, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Omitting formal parts, the indictment charges that appellant "did then and there unlawfully make threats to do personal violence and injury to the person of J. H. Williams, and did send to said J. H. Williams anonymous notices, and post on the premises of said J. H. Williams anonymous notices, saying, `Dam you if this dont led will,' meaning thereby, `Damn you, if this don't move you, lead will,' and did send and cause to be sent to said J. H. Williams said anonymous notices threatening personal violence to said J. H. Williams, with the intention of interfering with the right of said J. H. Williams to occupy said premises on which said J. H. Williams was then residing, and of causing said J. H. Williams to abandon said premises, and to abandon the county of Bowie, against the peace and dignity of the state." This indictment is criticised on several grounds.
We are of opinion that the indictment is subject to criticism. The innuendo seeks to give the notice, "Dam you if this dont led will," a meaning that does not follow from the language used in the notice. The innuendo is. "Damn you, if this don't move you, lead will." The language, without the innuendo, does not convey the idea that it was intended to move J. H. Williams. It may mean many other things as well, or it may mean any other things as well. The office of an innuendo is to define the defamatory meaning which the party seeks to put upon the words complained of, to show how they come to have the particular meaning claimed for them, as well as to show how they relate to the plaintiff, whenever that is not clear upon the face of the words; but an innuendo must not introduce new matter, or enlarge the natural meaning of the words. Newell on Slander and Libel, p. 619. Again, it is said by the same author, on page 629, that, "if the innuendo materially enlarge the sense of the words, it will vitiate the declaration or indictment." As we understand the indictment, the innuendo does not attempt to define the meaning of the words used, or to show how they came to have the peculiar threatening...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kutcher v. Post Printing Co.
...v. Ottofy (Mo. App.), 120 S.W. 693; Powell v. Crawford, 107 Mo. 595, 17 S.W. 1007; Moore v. Johnson (Ky.), 144 S.W. 765; Atchly v. State (Tex.), 120 S.W. 1010; Curtis v. Iseman, 137 Ky. 796, 127 S.W. 150; Hamilton v. Lowry, 33 Ind.App. 184, 71 N.E. 55; Grant v. New York Herald Co., 123 N.Y.......
-
McCoy v. Pescor, 12894.
...regarding the sufficiency of indictments under the adopted Texas statute. The Texas cases relied on by petitioner (Atchley v. State, 56 Tex.Cr.R. 569, 120 S.W. 1010; Walker v. State, 127 Tex. Cr.R. 335, 76 S.W.2d 1050) are distinguishable on the facts. The points involved were also raised i......
-
Mains v. K Mart Corp.
...is to say." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary 946 (2d ed. 1968). It is equivalent to the phrase id est. Atchley v. State, 56 Tex.Cr.R. 569, 120 S.W. 1010 (1909). Our Supreme Court in the case of Culler v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 183 S.C. 352, 191 S.E. 67 (1937) describes ......
-
McCauley v. State
...in their promptness to prosecute in this character of case, and not do so in other character of cases. In the case of Atchley v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 569, 120 S. W. 1010, Presiding Judge Davidson discusses this question of innuendo averments at some length, and holds that the "innuendo mus......