Jenkins v. State

Citation141 S.W. 222
PartiesJENKINS v. STATE.
Decision Date29 November 1911
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Appeal from Sabine County Court; T. R. Smith, Judge.

Charlie Jenkins was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Affirmed.

J. H. McGown and Goodrich & Lewis, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law.

The statement of facts is not embodied in the transcript, as required by the statute and decisions bearing upon this matter, and will not be considered.

There is a bill of exceptions in the record which recites that before appellant announced ready for trial he moved the court to quash the indictment, because it consisted of instruments, or portions of two instruments, pasted together; that is to say, that the indictment has a separate piece, cut from another and different instrument, pasted on the face of the indictment, supposedly to be used and read as a part of the indictment; that the indictment in its present condition is a mutilated instrument, pasted one upon the other, and that by reason of this condition the same is insufficient in law, and is void, because not in compliance with the terms of the statute; that by reason of the condition of said indictment defendant does not know who pasted the instruments together. The motion to quash upon this ground was overruled by the court, and a bill of exceptions taken. The motion to quash the indictment seems to be omitted from the record. Therefore we are relegated to the face of the bill of exceptions to ascertain what occurred in regard to this matter. The record fails to show whether there was any investigation of the matter by the court, or any evidence introduced as to whether the indictment was the indictment in fact returned by the grand jury, or not. On its face the original instrument, which is before us, after alleging the formal parts of the indictment down to and including the expression, "did then and there unlawfully sell to Eddie Roberts," is written in regular form, and from that on the remainder of the indictment is on a piece of printed paper, which seems to have been cut from some other paper and pasted into the indictment; and following the last words above quoted, "sell to Eddie Roberts," these words occur, "intoxicating liquors, after an election had been held by the qualified voters of said county," etc., down to and including, "in the manner and form, and for the length of time...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Steward v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 10 January 1968
    ...to the appellant by name. There is no showing that the indictment was not returned in this manner by the grand jury. See Jenkins v. State, 64 Tex.Cr.R. 86, 141 S.W. 222 (an indictment pasted He further claims that the indictment is fundamentally defective as it reflects that only the first ......
  • Lynch v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 21 March 1917
    ...authority of Looper v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 96, 136 S. W. 791, Wagoner v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 180, 140 S. W. 339, Jenkins v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 141 S. W. 222, and Skinner v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 141 S. W. 231, construing article 844, Vernon's Code Cr. Proc., the motion must b......
  • Drake v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 27 March 1912
    ...State, 140 S. W. 440; Wagoner v. State, 140 S. W. 339; Morris v. State, 140 S. W. 775; Brogdon v. State, 140 S. W. 352; Jenkins v. State (two cases) 141 S. W. 222, 223; Skinner v. State, 141 S. W. The only questions attempted to be raised by the appellant cannot be considered without a stat......

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