Lewis v. State
| Decision Date | 10 October 1906 |
| Citation | 97 S.W. 481 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Polk County Court; A. B. Green, Judge.
Jim Lewis was convicted of theft of a pistol, and he appeals. Affirmed.
James E. Hill, Jr., for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the theft of a pistol, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $1, and prosecutes this appeal.
Appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment
more than two days after the verdict
of the jury and judgment rendered thereon
His contention being that the name of the
his
prosecutor was signed "George X Adair."
mark
The motion shows that appellant had only
learned that George Adair could write his
name after the expiration of the two days
and the judgment of the court overruling the
motion recites the matter set up in the motion
to the effect that his counsel found after
the lapse of two days that George Adair was
able to write his name. The court overruled
the motion on the ground that it was too
late—the two days allowed by law having
expired. We believe that the ruling of the
court was correct. Valentine v. State, 6 Tex
App. 439. In Taylor v. State, 72 S. W. 181
6 Tex. Ct. Rep. 807, this matter was before
the court, but the question does not seem to
have been decided, the court stating that
there was no proof on the subject. We observe
that article 257, Code Cr. Proc. 1895,
in defining a complaint, among other reqisites,
requires that it must be in writing and signed by the affiant if he is able to write his name, otherwise he must place his mark at the foot of the complaint. Article 467, Code Cr. Proc. 1895, which requires that all informations shall be based on a complaint, in speaking of the complaint or oath, says: Nothing is said in this connection in regard to the affiant and the oath on which the information is based. There is no requirement that it be signed. However, if it be conceded that article 257, heretofore mentioned, is applicable, while a motion to quash might be entertained, still it would come too late in motion in arrest of judgment, where affiant had signed his mark to the complaint.
Appellant insists he should not have been convicted because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. v. Globe Indem. Co.
...a debt, Haley v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 30, 156 S.W. 637 (1913), and when the owner of a pistol took it from his pledgee. Lewis v. State, 50 Tex.Cr.R. 331, 97 S.W. 481 (1906). There was a theft when an owner of a watch fraudulently took it from the possession of the man holding it as security ......
-
Hardy v. State, 18158.
...attack matters of the indictment, the trial judge might have declined to consider the motion because filed too late. See Lewis v. State, 50 Tex.Cr.R. 331, 97 S.W. 481; Reno v. State, 56 Tex.Cr.R. 242, 120 S.W. 430; Burnett v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 598, 228 W. 239. However, we observe that the......