Crumes v. State

Decision Date21 May 1890
PartiesCRUMES <I>v.</I> STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from district court, Collin county; H. O. HEAD, Judge.

This conviction was for an assault with intent to rob Mrs. E. Wooten, and the penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of eight years in the penitentiary.

Mrs. E. Wooten was the first witness for the state. She testified, in substance, that she lived with her husband and six children about two and a half miles from Plano, in Collin county. Her husband left home about 8 o'clock on the night of January 1, 1890, to go to the house of Mr. Brown, about 300 yards distant. About midnight the witness was aroused by two persons calling, "Halloo." She responded by asking what they wanted. They replied by asking if the man of the house was at home. Witness replied that he was not; that he was at Mr. Brown's. They then asked for sleeping accommodations for the night. Witness told them she could not accommodate them, as she had no place for them to sleep. One or the other insisted on being admitted, saying that they were tired, and would sit up all night. They then demanded that the door be opened. Witness got up to open the door, and as she went to the door she saw two men through the window. When she got the door open, she was confronted by a large and a small man, the small man standing behind the large one. The large one had a mask on his face, and a pistol in his hand. As soon as witness got the door open, the large man asked her if she had any money. She replied that she had not a cent. He then demanded a ring he discovered on witness' finger. Witness told him that the ring was given her in childhood by her brother, and that she would not surrender it; that it was of little value at best, as it was only silver. He then said, if it was only a silver ring, he did not want it. About this time the small man asked if any one of the household had any money. Her oldest boy, then thirteen years old, produced a nickel, which he offered the parties; but the large man declined to receive it on the statement that it was the only piece of money in the house. The witness did not recognize the large man, but she recognized the small one as Will Coleman. The witness was satisfied from its general appearance that the pistol in evidence was the pistol exhibited by the large man at the time he demanded money.

The evidence for the state otherwise shows that the tracks of two men — one being a large, square-toed boot track, and the other a smaller, round-toed shoe track — were found near Wooten's gate, and traced to a point about 100 yards distant, where a horse had been tied. Thence the horse track was traced about 250 yards down the road. The said road ran between two wire fence inclosures. At one place the tracks showed that the horse ran into the wire fence, from which several horse hairs were taken. Persons long familiar with the defendant's noted horse, Wilson, declared it to be their opinion that the hairs taken from the fence were hairs of the said horse; and several witnesses testified that they closely examined the foot tracks, and afterwards, on the examining trial, closely observed the feet of defendant and Coleman, and that it was their opinion that the large boot track followed from Wooten's gate to where the horse had been tied was made by the boots of defendant, and that the shoe track was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • McKenzie v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 20, 1981
    ...factual contention and was available to testify, e. g., wife, Mercer v. State, 17 Cr.R. 452 (Ct.App.1885); father, Crumes v. State, 28 Cr.R. 516, 13 S.W. 868 (1890); eyewitness friends, Mayes v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 33, 24 S.W. 421 (1893); and see the host of similar applications annotated a......
  • Brock v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1899
    ...testimony, if produced, would be unfavorable." See, also, the following authorities: Mercer v. State, 17 Tex.App. 452; Crumes v. State, 28 Tex.App. 516, 13 S.W. 868; Jackson v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 342, 20 S.W. State v. Weddington, 103 N.C. 364, 9 S.E. 577; People v. McGrath, 5 Utah, 525, ......
  • Gonzales v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 15, 1975
    ...258, 319 S.W.2d 313; Clark v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 286 S.W.2d 939; Jones v. State, 89 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 231 S.W. 122; Crumes v. State, 28 Tex.App. 516, 13 S.W. 868. See, also, Article 1165, Vernon's Ann.P.C., and annotations In Earl v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 514 S.W.2d 273, the contention wa......
  • Mueller v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 21, 1919
    ...in either of these cases or instances the witness may give his opinion as to the similarity of the tracks. Crumes v. State, 28 Tex. App. 516, 13 S. W. 868, 19 Am. St. Rep. 853; Goldsmith v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 22 S. W. 405; Baines v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 490, 66 S. W. 849; Gill v. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT