Hines v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 1905 |
| Parties | HINES et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Tarrant County Court; R. F. Milam, Judge.
Tom Hines and J. H. Childers were convicted of crime, and appeal. Reversed.
Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment contains three counts—one for swindling; one for theft, under the bailment statute, by conversion; and the other for theft. Motion was made to quash the count alleging swindling. We believe this motion was well taken; that the count charging swindling was not legally sufficient. The count for theft is good. Swindling and theft were both submitted to the jury, and a general verdict was returned. Upon another trial the count for swindling will not be submitted in the charge. The verdict is as follows: "We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged in the information, and assess their punishment at a fine of $100, and confinement in the county jail for six months." Objection was urged to this for uncertainty. It is a joint verdict, and not a separate verdict against each defendant. The objections are well taken. Edwards v. State, 75 S. W. 859, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 1004; Cunningham v. State, 26 Tex. App. 83, 9 S. W. 62; Whitcomb v. State, 30 Tex. App. 269, 17 S. W. 258.
Because of the uncertainty of the verdict of the jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
... ... 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 ... was identical in substance to that here and ... ...
-
Ex parte Booth
... ... exceeding five thousand dollars, or imprisonment in the ... county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison ... not exceeding five years. In all prosecutions for libel * * ... * the jury shall have the right to determine the law and ... the fact." ... 61, 84 S.W. 956; State v. Grossman, 214 Mo. 233, 113 ... S.W. 1074; State v. Jefferson, 120 La. 116, 44 So ... 1004; Hines v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 24, 85 S.W ... 1057; People v. Holmes, 118 Cal. 444, 50 P. 675; 12 ... Cyc. 690 ... In ... People ... ...
-
Arnold v. State
...a reversal. Meyer v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 615, 279 S.W. 460; Davidson v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 215, 97 S.W.2d 698; Hines v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 85 S.W. 1057; Grayson v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 62, 211 S.W.2d 749; 42 Tex.Jur. 468, Sec. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded. Opin......
- Crow v. State