Cothran v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1896 |
| Citation | 36 S.W. 273 |
| Parties | COTHRAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Travis county court; D. A. McFall, Judge.
C. H. Cothran appeals from a conviction. Reversed.
Hogg & Robertson, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted for dealing in futures. Omitting the formal parts, the information charges that appellant "was the agent and representative of the firm of Fairchild & Hobson, whose other names are to affiant unknown, and, as such agent and representative of said firm of Fairchild & Hobson, said C. H. Cothran did then and there unlawfully conduct, carry on, and transact a business commonly known as `dealing in futures,' in agricultural products, to wit, cotton, with no intention of an actual, bona fide delivery of the article and thing bought and sold, against the peace and dignity of the state." Several exceptions were urged to the sufficiency of this information. This prosecution was brought under article 377 of Rev. Pen. Code 1895, which reads as follows: "If any person shall, directly or through an agent or agents, manage or superintend for himself, or shall as agent or representative of any other person, firm or corporation, conduct, carry on, or transact any business which is commonly known as dealing in futures, in cotton, grain, lard, in all kinds of meat or agricultural products, or corporation stocks, or shall keep any house or manage, conduct, carry on, or transact any business commonly known as a produce or stock exchange, or bucket shop, where future contracts are bought and sold, with no intention of an actual bona fide delivery of the article or thing so bought or sold,—such person, whether acting for himself or for another as aforesaid, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," etc. In order to constitute this offense the party must not only conduct, carry on, and transact a business commonly known as "dealing in futures," but that business must be based upon the fact that future contracts are to be bought and sold with no intention of an actual, bona fide delivery of the article or thing so bought or sold; and in order to charge an offense under this statute it would be necessary to allege, not only that the business commonly known as "dealing in futures" was conducted, carried on, and transacted, but it must further allege that it was a business where future contracts are bought and sold with no intention of an actual, bona fide delivery of the article or thing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scales v. State
...court, would appear to be, in the respect mentioned, vicious. Goldstein v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 193, 36 S. W. 278; Cothran v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 36 S. W. 273. However, those cases on this question have been overruled in Fullerton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 75 S. W. 534. In accordance......
-
Fullerton v. State
...brief in the record, calling our attention to the fact that the indictment was not sufficient under the authority of Cothran v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 36 S. W. 273. Under the authority of that case, the indictment in this case is hardly sufficient. We have carefully reviewed the statute......
- Clark v. State