Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1893 |
| Citation | 22 S.W. 979 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Parker county court; I. N. Roach, Judge.
J. O. Davis was convicted of slandering a female, and appeals. Reversed.
R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of slandering Lizzie Gilleland. The affidavit charges that the words assigned as slander were spoken in the presence of J. P. Gilleland and others. The information alleges that they were spoken in the presence and hearing of J. P. Plumlee and others. Without a complaint supporting the information, there can beno legal prosecution thereon. The complaint particularizes the transaction, — the offense. This offense must be prosecuted before a court of competent jurisdiction. As a basis for the transaction there must be presented an information founded upon the complaint. The information must charge the same offense, with its particularities, as set forth in the complaint. If the complaint should allege that the accused slandered Lizzie Gilleland, omitting the name of the person in whose presence the words were spoken, and the information should name the person or persons, there would be no variance; but the information cannot differ from the particularities of the offense alleged in the complaint. We are of opinion that, while the information is good upon its face, it is bad for the want of a complaint. Appellant did not speak the slanderous words in the presence of J. P. Plumlee. Being pressed by the father of the girl, J. P. Gilleland, he stated that he had seen his daughter engaged in the illicit act with one H. Keeling. This is no slander if there was no variance between the complaint and information. Hix v. State, (Tex. Crim. App.) 20 S. W. Rep. 550. The judgment is reversed, and cause remanded. Judges all present and concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foster
... ... complaint on preliminary examination. People v ... Cohen, 50 P. 20; People v. Crespi, 46 P. 863; ... State v. Wright, 91 N.W. 311; People v ... Christian, 35 P. 1043; Brown v. State, 64 N.W ... 749; Yaner v. People, 34 Mich. 286; Davis v ... State, 22 S.W. 979; State v. Farris, 51 P. 772; ... Com. v. Linton, 2 Va. 205; section 7954, Rev. Codes ... When an ... act is to be performed in fulfillment of a statutory ... requirement, Sunday will not be excluded and the act must be ... done on Saturday. Harrison ... ...
-
Cornelius v. Cornelius
...Atwill v. McIntosh, 120 Mass. 180; Livingston v. Bradford, 73 N.W. 137; Buisson v. Huard, 106 La. 768; Erber v. Dunn, 12 F. 530; Davis v. State, 22 S.W. 979; Baysett v. Hire, 22 So. 44; Van Horn v. Van Horn, 56 N. J. L. 325. (3) The trial court erred in giving plaintiff's first instruction.......
-
State v. Fordham
... ... Evans, 40 N.W. 473; O'Hara v. People, 3 ... N.W. 161; Brown v. State, 64 N.W. 749; People v ... Christian, 35 P. 1043; People v. Howland, 44 P ... 342; People v. Parker, 27 Cal. 537; People v ... Wallace, 29 P. 950; Ex parte Baker, 25 P. 966; State ... v. Farris, 51 P. 772; Davis v. State, 22 S.W ... 979; State v. Barnes, 3 N.D. 131, 54 N.W. 541 ... It is a ... fundamental right of every person to be free from the ... expense, annoyance, humiliation and danger of a trial before ... a petit jury, save upon an accusation by a duly constituted ... ...
-
Lehmann v. Medack
...73 Tex. 568, 11 S. W. 555, 4 L. R. A. 280, 15 Am. St. Rep. 794. In the cases of Hix v. State (Cr. App.) 20 S. W. 550, and Davis v. State (Cr. App.) 22 S. W. 979, it was held that statements which would otherwise be slanderous are privileged if made at the solicitation of a parent of the sla......