Bailey v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1897 |
| Citation | 38 S.W. 992 |
| Parties | BAILEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Angelina county; Tom C. Davis, Judge.
W. E. Bailey was convicted of perjury, and appeals. Affirmed.
Mantooth & Townsend, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of perjury, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary; hence this appeal.
Appellant excepted generally to the charge of the court, but pointed out no specific objections to said charge. This character of exceptions to the charge of the court is not sufficient. However, we have examined the charge of the court, and we think it is a pertinent exposition of the law applied to the facts of the case. There was no error in the court correcting the charge, on suggestion made after it was read to the jury, and before it was delivered to them.
Appellant excepted to the refusal of the court to admit the testimony of the witness D. B. McCall. The bill does itself show that he proposed to prove by said witness, on cross-examination, that defendant, before and at the time said instrument was alleged to have been signed, denied having signed his name on said note; but the court, in his explanation to said bill, shows that it was not disclosed what this witness would have testified to on that subject. This explanation or qualification disposes of this bill. We would also observe that, in order that this should have been a complete bill, it should have shown the ground upon which this testimony was admissible.
In bill of exceptions No. 5, appellant insists that the court erred in excluding the testimony of McCall as to a conversation or statement made by the defendant in the presence of the witness, and also in the presence of Tom Showers, Ike Battle, and Irby Husband, at which time defendant related the transaction between himself and the prosecutor, West, and stated in the presence of said witness that West wanted him to sign the note and he had refused, and called on him and the others to witness it that he had refused. The bill shows that this testimony was an ex parte statement, made by the defendant after the transaction between him and West had been consummated, and West had gone. How long afterwards this statement was made does not appear, but the testimony was clearly hearsay.
We do not believe the court erred, as shown in bill of exceptions No. 6, in excluding the testimony as to what certain witnesses swore...
To continue reading
Request your trial