Huizar v. State
| Decision Date | 22 May 1901 |
| Citation | 63 S.W. 329 |
| Parties | HUIZAR v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Atascosa county court; N. R. Wallace, Judge.
Vicente Huizar was convicted of aggravated assault on a female, and he appeals. Judgment modified and affirmed.
Jas. A. Waltom, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant, an adult male. by complaint and information was charged with an aggravated assault upon Jane Huizar, a female, and upon conviction was fined $25.
Appellant criticises the complaint and information on the ground of variance. The complaint reads in the first person; that is, Jane Huizar makes the complaint, and it is made in the first person. The county attorney presents the information, and refers to Jane Huizar in the third person. Appellant made a motion to quash the complaint and information because of a variance, in that the affiant speaks of herself as using the word "me" (that is, that "appellant then and there beat and struck me"), while in the information the county attorney speaks of the complainant as "her," or in the third person. The complaint alleges that appellant committed the battery as follows: "By beating and striking me with hand." The information alleged, "By beating and striking her with his hand." We think the complaint and information are sufficient, and this does not constitute a variance to the extent of affecting their validity. Arrington v. State, 13 Tex. App. 551; Bell v. State, 18 Tex. App. 53, 51 Am. Rep. 293.
Appellant reserved an exception to the court commenting upon rejected evidence, as follows: Appellant insists the court's remarks were highly prejudicial to the rights of defendant, and were calculated to impress upon the jury the belief that the court thought the defense was frivolous, and because the remark of the court was upon the weight of the evidence. We think the better practice for the court in excluding testimony is not to comment thereon. However, we fail to see in what way appellant has been injured. Rodriguez v. State, 23 Tex. App. 503, 5 S. W. 255.
We find a motion to retax the costs in the record. The motion sets up that the justice of the peace and constable have $9.25 taxed as costs against appellant for an examining trial. It appears that the examining trial, if any, was in a misdemeanor case. There is no provision of law authorizing such fees. We also note...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chisom v. State
...App. 39; Cole v. State, 11 Tex. App. 67; Steinberger v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 492, 34 S. W. 617; Baker v. State, 35 S. W. 666; Huizar v. State, 63 S. W. 329; Moreno v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 660, 143 S. W. 157, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 863; Brown v. State, 170 S. W. 714. This is an information for a......
-
Ex Parte Way.
...court a warrant could issue for the arrest of the accused, where he could be subsequently tried. This question was discussed in Huizar v. State, 63 S. W. 329. We there held that the justice of the peace was not entitled, under our statute, to fees for holding examining trials in misdemeanor......