Cunningham v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1888 |
| Citation | 9 S.W. 62 |
| Parties | CUNNINGHAM <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, San Saba county; A. W. MOURSUND, Judge.
Indictment of H. C. and J. J. Cunningham jointly for obstructing a public road. On rehearing.
W. B. Dunham, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
At a former day of the term this judgment was affirmed without a written opinion; the only points considered being the sufficiency of the indictment and the evidence, and the correctness of the charge of the court. This motion for rehearing urges for the first time that the verdict and judgment are illegal; and the point is well taken. Two defendants were jointly indicted and tried. The verdict was: "We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged, and assess the fine at one hundred dollars." The judgment on this verdict adjudges a joint fine. The law does not authorize such a judgment, and the verdict will not support a legal judgment. Flynn v. State, 8 Tex. App. 398; Matlock v. State, ante, 45. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
... ... should have been a separate assessment against each ... defendant ... The ... only other cases, outside of this state, to which we are ... cited by appellants' counsel are from the state of Texas, ... to wit: Allen v. State, 34 Tex. 230, Cunningham ... v. State, 26 Tex.App. 83, 9 S.W. 62, and Hines v ... State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 85 S.W. 1057, in each of which ... the punishment was only a fine; and Hays v. State, ... 30 Tex.App. 472, 17 S.W. 1063, and Caesar v. State, ... 30 Tex.App. 274, 17 S.W. 258, where the form of the verdict ... ...
-
Meadowcroft v. People
...v. State, 45 Tex. 154;Flynn v. State, 8 Tex. App. 398;State v. Gay, 10 Mo. 440;Streughan v. State, 16 Ark. 37;Cunningham v. State, 26 Tex. App. 83,9 S. W. 62;Medis v. State, 27 Tex. App. 194,11 S. W. 112;Hays v. State, 30 Tex. App. 472,17 S. W. 1063;Com. v. Harris, 7 Grat. 600;Caldwell v. C......
-
Mootry v. State
...followed in other misdemeanor cases where the question has arisen. See Matlock v. State, 25 Tex. App. 716, 8 S. W. 818; Cunningham v. State, 26 Tex. App. 83, 9 S. W. 62. In Medis v. State, 27 Tex. App. 194, 11 S. W. 112, appellants were jointly tried for sodomy. The verdict of the jury, as ......
-
Lawrence v. State
...case is also defective. The jury assessed a joint penalty, and did not assess the punishment against each defendant. Cunningham v. State, 26 Tex. App. 83, 9 S. W. 62. For the errors pointed out the case is reversed, and the cause HURT, P. J., absent. ...