Henderson v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtHenderson
Citation39 S.W. 116
PartiesHENDERSON v. STATE.
Decision Date24 February 1897
39 S.W. 116
HENDERSON
v.
STATE.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
February 24, 1897.

Page 117

Appeal from Clay county court; F. J. Barrett, Judge.

J. J. Henderson, convicted of violating the local option law, appeals. Affirmed.

A. K. Swan and L. C. Bartlett, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.


Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, in Clay county, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days' imprisonment in the county jail; hence this appeal.

1. The court did not err in overruling appellant's application for a continuance. The witness Love appeared in court, and testified on the trial. It is not reasonable to suppose that appellant will ever be able to ascertain the names of the four strange parties that he was unable to furnish at the time he made the application for process. Besides, the testimony of said witnesses, it occurs to us, would not be material. A number of witnesses testified to the transaction which it was proposed to prove by them; and, besides, the state's witness Dare, in effect, admitted the truth of their testimony, as he testified to the same facts.

2. There was no error in the action of the court in permitting certain witnesses introduced by the state to speak as to the general reputation of the witness Dare for truth and honesty. All these witnesses testified that they knew the general reputation of said Dare in that respect, and the fact that on cross-examination they stated that they had never heard that reputation discussed in that community did not disqualify them from testifying on the subject.

3. The bill of exceptions as to the action of the court in authorizing testimony of certain witnesses to the effect that they saw an internal revenue license posted up in defendant's saloon, and then state the contents thereof, becomes immaterial, in view of the fact that said internal revenue license was subsequently produced in court by the defendant. Under the circumstances, however, we do not think the court erred in admitting the parol testimony of said witnesses. The defendant first refused to produce the internal revenue license, and it would appear that, when they first sent to his saloon for it, the saloon was locked up and admission refused.

4. Nor was there any error in the action of the court in permitting the state, on cross-examination of the defendant, to prove by him, on procurement of the internal revenue license, what he paid for the same....

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Robinson v. State, 609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 10, 1910
    ...State, (Tex. Cr.) 56 S.W. 920; Lockwood v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 22 S.W. 413; People v. Winthrop, 118 Cal. 85; Fletcher v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 39 S.W. 116; Butler v. State, 38 S.W. 787; People v. Colton, 5 Utah 451.) An accused has a right to a reasonable time in which to prepare for trial. (Cons......
  • Mitchell v. State, No. 49459
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 25, 1975
    ...such witness states that he has never heard that reputation discussed in the community. See Henderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 39 S.W. 116. A different rule prevails where the witness testifies that the reputation is bad. In such even, if the witness states that he has never heard any person ......
  • Mason v. Pamplin, Civ. A. No. 3398.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • August 10, 1964
    ...for change of venue in a misdemeanor case, see: Halsell v. State, 29 Tex.App. 22, 18 S.W. 418 (1890); Henderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 39 S.W. 116 (1897); Fox v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 150, 109 S.W. 370 (1908); Burton v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 579, 197 S.W.2d 346 (1946); Privitt v. State, 150 Te......
  • Jacks v. State, No. 30115
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 12, 1958
    ...appellant's reputation. [3, 4] Appellant relies upon Gilson v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 145 S.W.2d 182; Henderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 39 S.W. 116; and Broussard v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 114 S.W.2d 248. As we understand the rule there expressed, it is that one may not testify that an a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Robinson v. State, 609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 10, 1910
    ...State, (Tex. Cr.) 56 S.W. 920; Lockwood v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 22 S.W. 413; People v. Winthrop, 118 Cal. 85; Fletcher v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 39 S.W. 116; Butler v. State, 38 S.W. 787; People v. Colton, 5 Utah 451.) An accused has a right to a reasonable time in which to prepare for trial. (Cons......
  • Mitchell v. State, No. 49459
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 25, 1975
    ...such witness states that he has never heard that reputation discussed in the community. See Henderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 39 S.W. 116. A different rule prevails where the witness testifies that the reputation is bad. In such even, if the witness states that he has never heard any person ......
  • Mason v. Pamplin, Civ. A. No. 3398.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • August 10, 1964
    ...for change of venue in a misdemeanor case, see: Halsell v. State, 29 Tex.App. 22, 18 S.W. 418 (1890); Henderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 39 S.W. 116 (1897); Fox v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 150, 109 S.W. 370 (1908); Burton v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 579, 197 S.W.2d 346 (1946); Privitt v. State, 150 Te......
  • Jacks v. State, No. 30115
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 12, 1958
    ...appellant's reputation. [3, 4] Appellant relies upon Gilson v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 145 S.W.2d 182; Henderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 39 S.W. 116; and Broussard v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 114 S.W.2d 248. As we understand the rule there expressed, it is that one may not testify that an a......
  • 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