Holman v. State
| Decision Date | 22 November 1905 |
| Parties | HOLMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Franklin County Court; J. E. Mattinson, Judge.
Ed Holman was convicted of cruelty to animals, and appeals. Affirmed.
Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is contended that the indictment is duplicitous, in that it states two distinct offenses. The charging part is that appellant "did then and there willfully and wantonly maim, wound, and disfigure and cruelly and unmercifully beat and abuse a mule," etc. This prosecution was under article 787, White's Ann. Pen. Code, which provides: "If any person shall willfully or wantonly kill, maim, wound, disfigure, poison, or cruelly and unmercifully beat and abuse any animal, or bird, included in the preceding article," etc. All these modes and means of committing the offense enumerated in this article may be joined in the same count in an indictment without rendering it duplicitous. This has been settled by a long line of decisions in this state and has become the settled law. There is no merit in appellant's contention. There is neither bill of exceptions nor statement of facts in the record, and, as presented, no error is manifest.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odle v. State, 20955.
...597, 44 S. W. 176; Schirmacker v. State [Tex.Cr. App.] 45 S.W. 802; Prendergast v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 358, 57 S.W. 850; Holman v. State [Tex.Cr.App.] 90 S.W. 174; Reum v. State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. [125] 128, 90 S.W. 1109; Morris v. State, 57 Tex. Cr.R. 163, 121 S.W. 1112; Cabiness v. State 146 S......
-
Stevens v. State
...v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 552, 40 S. W. 287; Medina v. State, 49 S. W. 380; Reum v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 128, 90 S. W. 1109; Holman v. State, 90 S. W. 174; Willis v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 148, 29 S. W. 787; Goodwin v. State, 158 S. W. 274, this day and cases cited. The opinions in these cas......
-
Todd v. State
...509, 10 S. W. 106; Cabiness v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 409, 146 S. W. 934; Morris v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 163, 121 S. W. 1112; Holman v. State, 90 S. W. 174; Willis v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 148, 29 S. W. 787; Howell v. State, 29 Tex. App. 592, 16 S. W. What we have above said seems to be als......
-
Pierce v. State
...317, 5 S. W. 239; Comer v. State, 26 Tex. App. 509, 10 S. W. 106; Prendergast v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 358, 57 S. W. 850; Holman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 90 S. W. 174; Johnson v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 177, 171 S. W. 211, 212. We deem the rule above quoted applicable to the present Appellant......