Johns v. State

Decision Date17 February 1897
PartiesJOHNS v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

A. A. Kemble and Y. D. Kemble, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

This case comes before us on motion for rehearing. We have examined the record carefully, and see no reason to change our opinion rendered in this case. Even if the contention of the appellant be true, that the state should be confined to the very case,— that is, the very occasion of playing cards as testified to by the witnesses before the grand jury,—yet the record fails to disclose that the game played at or near the tent on Wilcher's farm was the only game that the witness Wilcher testified about before the grand jury. And it further fails to disclose that said Wilcher was the only witness before the grand jury against the defendant for gaming. We adhere, however, to the opinion heretofore expressed by us, that the testimony of another game was admissible in evidence, and it was the duty of the appellant to have made a motion before the court requiring the state to elect upon which occurrence defendant would be prosecuted, before he can be heard to complain. The motion for a rehearing is overruled.

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Dent v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 5 June 1901
    ...35 Tex. Cr. R. 540, 34 S. W. 751; Webb v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 41, 35 S. W. 380; Jordan v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 222, 38 S. W. 780, 39 S. W. 110. That portion of the indictment, therefore, which recites the killing of McGee by Isaacs in Hemphill county, and the transfer of the case from th......
  • Zweig v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 30 April 1913
    ...35 Tex. Cr. R. 540, 34 S. W. 751; Webb v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 41, 35 S. W. 380; Jordan v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 222, 38 S. W. 780, 39 S. W. 110." Appellant insists that if it was not necessary that the county in the foreign state where the goods were received should be named (and articles......
  • Goodwin v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 4 June 1913
    ...R. 41, 35 S. W. 380; Mathews v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 553, 47 S. W. 647, 48 S. W. 189; Jordan v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 222, 38 S. W. 780, 39 S. W. 110. Mr. Branch, in his Texas Crim. Law, § 905, lays down the same rule in two separate paragraphs as follows: "If not descriptive of that which......
  • Herrington v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 15 April 1914
    ...R. 41, 35 S. W. 380; Mathews v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 553, 47 S. W. 647, 48 S. W. 189; Jordan v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 222, 38 S. W. 780, 39 S. W. 110. And especially should this be done as the court in the charge submitted solely the allegations under the said second clause of said statute......
  • 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