King v. State

Citation24 S.W. 514
PartiesKING v. STATE.
Decision Date29 November 1893
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from district court, McLennan county; S. R. Scott, Judge.

S. A. King, alias E. R. Wingate, was convicted of perjury, and appeals.

For opinion on appeal from conviction of swindling, see 21 S. W. 190.

R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was allotted a term of five years in the penitentiary for the crime of perjury. The perjury was assigned upon defendant's testimony on his trial for swindling a bank in Waco by means of a certain draft, and in which trial he testified that he was not in Waco at the time the money was obtained, but was in the city of Ft. Worth. The draft was set out in this indictment, and also offered in evidence on the trial. Objection was urged to it because of a variance. If it be true there was a variance, it was immaterial in this case, because the allegations pertaining to the draft were made as matter of inducement, and for the purpose of identifying the former case and trial, only, in which defendant was charged with having committed the perjury. Upon his trial for the swindling, the variance, if any, would have been a question of more or less import, according to the terms of the allegations in said indictment; and had the instrument been set out by its tenor in that indictment, and a variance shown, a reversal in this court upon that conviction might have followed. But it did not constitute any material issue of the perjury assigned in this case. We would remark, however, that the variance is not apparent.

2. The alleged objectionable remarks of the county attorney were, upon objection, promptly withdrawn by the court, and the jury instructed to discard and not consider same. No injury is shown to have resulted. Willson, Crim. St. § 2321.

3. The objection that the testimony fails to show the court was in session, and a judicial proceeding pending, at the time the perjury was committed, is not borne out by the record. Hence, the court did not err in failing and refusing to instruct the jury to acquit upon this ground. The testimony of the witness Taylor, as well as that of Beasly, is emphatic upon this point. The records, except the indictment for swindling, were not introduced in evidence, but these witnesses testify fully to the trial, etc., in the swindling case. There were no objections urged to this manner of proof, when it was made. Nor was it necessary to introduce in evidence in this case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Kent
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1896
    ...as error. Peo. v. Greenwall, 115 N.Y. 520; State v. McGahey, 3 N.D. 293; Miller v. State, 25 S.W. 634; Handly v. Com., 24 S.W. 609; King v. State, 24 S.W. 514; Gibbs State, 20 S.W. 919; Griffin v. State, 8 So. 670; Hilton v. Com., 16 S.W. 826; Palmer v. State, 28 N.E. 130; Sterling v. State......
  • Parish v. Pitts
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1968
    ... ... economics, taxation, the allocation of the proceeds thereof, and the myriad other interests affecting the general welfare of the people of the State. It should also be realized that most citizens, and more particularly ... legislators, will normally think of themselves as being on the side of ... Generally governmental immunity is traced to the medieval concept that 'the king can do no wrong', a notion which is entirely foreign to and at variance with the basic principles of government in America. Whether the rule of ... ...
  • Turner v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 3, 1987
    ...term that the appellant is tried, the court will not be authorized to make the sentence cumulative." 8 Cf., however, King v. State, 32 Tex.Cr.App. 463, 24 S.W. 514 (1893). In Forester v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.App. 61, 163 S.W. 87 (1913), record evidence of the prior conviction was offered at the......
  • Leech v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 21, 1911
    ...38 S. W. 183; Monticue v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 531, 51 S. W. 236; Armstrong v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 30 S. W. 235; King v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 463, 24 S. W. 514; Dudley v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 35, 48 S. W. 179; Byrd v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 609, 47 S. W. 721; Lancaster v. State, 36......
  • 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