Greer v. State

Citation22 Tex. 588
PartiesSTEPHEN GREER v. THE STATE.
Decision Date01 January 1858
CourtSupreme Court of Texas
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Where a section of a statute is amended, and the amendment is made in such terms that it stands in the stead of the said section, and by a subsequent act, the said section of the original statute is expressly repealed, the amendment, which was made to stand in its place is thereby repealed.

An offense may be punished, either under the law in force at the time it was committed, or under the law in force at the time of the trial, if this mitigated the punishment; or perhaps, in the absence of express provision, according as the accused might elect, to be tried and punished, under the law in force, when the offense was committed, or under the law in force at the time of the trial.

But when a law, which describes an offense, and prescribes for its punishment, is repealed, and there is no law in force recognizing the offense, and providing for its punishment, then no one can be punished for that offense, although the act was done at a time when the law defined the offense, and prescribed its punishment; for no one can be punished, except by virtue of a law in force at the time of the trial of the offender.

APPEAL from Brazos. Tried below before the Hon. John Gregg.

Appellant was indicted on the 4th of September, 1856, for permitting, on the 1st day of January, 1856, a slave owned by him and under his control, to carry fire-arms, at other places than on his premises.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Rogers, for appellant.

Attorney General, for appellee.

BELL, J.

The 6th section of the act of Februay 5th, 1840, entitled “An act concerning slaves,” prohibited slaves from carrying fire-arms in the republic, without the written consent of the master, mistress, or overseer. This was the first statute on the subject in Texas. It did not make the carrying of fire arms by a slave, without the written consent of the master, mistress or overseer, an indictable offense. It only provided that the fire-arms, or other weapons, might be taken away from the slave, and that the same might be forfeited, if they did not exceed ten dollars in value, etc. On the 3d December, 1850, there was an act approved, amending the 6th section of the act of 5th February, 1840. This was done in such manner that the amendment of the 3d December, 1850, stood in the stead of the 6th section of the act of February, 1840. This amendment made it an indictable offense for any owner, overseer or employer of slaves, under his control or in his employment, to permit such slave or slaves to carry fire arms of any description, or other deadly weapons, at other places than on the premises of such owner, overseer or employer....

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Vandyke v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 20 Diciembre 2017
    ...itself disappear in legal contemplation, since there is neither a conviction nor even any punishment to nullify.14 See Greer v. State , 22 Tex. 588, 590 (1858) ; Sheppard v. State , 1 Tex. Ct. App. 522, 523-25 (1877) ; Hubbard v. State , 2 Tex. Ct. App. 506, 507 (1877) ; Montgomery v. State......
  • State v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 5 Mayo 1920
    ...16. To the same effect are the authorities generally. Wall v. State, 18 Tex. 696, 70 Am. Dec. 302; State v. Robinson, 19 Tex. 478; Greer v. State, 22 Tex. 588; State v. Savage, supra; Sheppard v. State, 1 Tex. App. 522, 28 Am. Rep. 422; Boone v. State, 12 Tex. App. 184; Hall v. State, 52 Te......
  • State ex rel. Atlantic Horse Ins. Co. v. Blake
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 9 Febrero 1912
    ...section. [State v. Schenk, 238 Mo. 429, 142 S.W. 263; Kamerick v. Castleman, 21 Mo.App. 587; Blake v. Brackett, 47 Me. 28; Greer v. State, 22 Tex. 588; Rowan Ide, 107 F. 161; Endlich on Int. of Stat., sec. 294; McKibben v. Lester, 9 Ohio St. 627.] In the last-named case the court said: "Whe......
  • Columbia Wire Co. v. Boyce
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 13 Octubre 1900
    ...... has been repealed or declared unconstitutional. 23 Am.&. Eng.Enc.Law, 276; Igoe v. State, 14 Ind. 239;. Blakemore v. Dolan, 50 Ind. 194; Hall v. Craig, 125 Ind. 529, 25 N.E. 538; State v. Benton, 33 Neb. 823, 833, 51 N.W. 140, 144; ...418, 9 N.E. 761; Jones v. Commissioner, 21 Mich. 236; State. v. Brewster, 39 Ohio St. 653; Basnett v. City of. Jacksonville, 19 Fla. 664; Greer v. State, 22. Tex. 588; State v. Warford, 84 Ala. 15, 3 So. 911;. Blake v. Brackett, 47 Me. 28. . . In the. Massachusetts case ......
  • 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