Chapman v. State

• Decision Date: 15 February 1899
• Citation: 49 S.W. 587
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

49 S.W. 587

CHAPMAN v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 15, 1899.

Appeal from Navarro county court; J. F. Stout, Judge.

W. L. Chapman was convicted of adultery, and appeals. Affirmed.

Robt. A. John, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of adultery, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100, and he appeals.

What purports to be a statement of the facts was filed after the final adjournment of the court for the term, and, no 10-day order appearing in the record, we cannot consider the same.

On the trial, the state, over the objections of appellant, was permitted to prove "that defendant and Mary Thomas, the prosecuting witness, had lived as man and wife for five or six months before the trial, and during said time had had habitual carnal intercourse with her, without living together, and the proof offered was at variance with the allegations in the indictment"; further, "that the proof offered was intercourse charged in another county, and not in Navarro county." The first ground of objection urged appears to us to be well taken; but there is nothing in the bill to show that there is anything in the second ground, as the bill does not indicate that proof of intercourse was offered as having occurred in another county than Navarro. However, in the absence of a statement of facts, we cannot tell what bearing said testimony, if it be conceded that same was inadmissible, may have had on the case. The testimony may have been overwhelming, establishing the adultery as charged in the indictment. It certainly could not be held to have aggravated the offense, because the jury gave appellant the least punishment.

It occurs to us that the testimony of the witnesses Lowery and Crocker was admissible. At any rate, if it was not admissible, we fail to see how it could have injured appellant.

Appellant's fourth bill of exceptions states "that the state offered to prove the following facts, to wit: That defendant told Mrs. Ada Thomas that he (defendant) was going to take Ada Thomas, who was with the defendant, to Powell, about six weeks before the trial of the above styled and numbered cause." The bill does not show by what witness it was proposed to prove this fact, nor does it show that the same was admissible, nor does it show the pertinency or relevancy of such testimony.

In the motion for new trial, appellant urges that the case should be reversed because the indictment was found on the testimony of his wife. There...