Lichten v. State, No. 40871

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtDICE
Citation434 S.W.2d 128,89 S.Ct. 259
Docket NumberNo. 40871
Decision Date06 March 1968
PartiesThomas Rogers LICHTEN et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Page 128

434 S.W.2d 128
Thomas Rogers LICHTEN et al., Appellants,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 40871.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 6, 1968.
Rehearing Denied May 22, 1968.
Appeal Dismissed Oct. 28, 1968.
See 89 S.Ct. 259.

Dixie & Schulman by Chris Dixie, Robert E. Hall, George C. Dixie, Houston, for appellants.

Robert T. Burns, County Atty., Huntsville, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DICE, Judge.

The appellants, Thomas Rogers Lichten, William Boyd Oliver, III, William Cody Wilson, Billy Charles Malone, Frank Pinkerton, Wallace B. Poteat, Robert V. Stone, Vernice Wayne Oakes, Harry Hall Womack, III, Anthony C. Kneupper, Jr., Thomas Alfred Hipp, Arthur R. Yarbrough, Gilbert Campos, Van Richard Viebig, Jr., Anya Allister, Margaret T. Poteat, Anne Keith Finlayson, Joe Terry Hawthorn, Paula B. Hawthorn, Julie C. Cadenhead, Lynda N. Shaffer, and Marguerite F. Corley were jointly charged, by information, in the County Court of Walker County, with the offense of unlawful assembly.

Upon a trial before the court without a jury, on their pleas of not guilty, the appellants were convicted and each assessed punishment at a fine of $100, except the appellant William Boyd Oliver, III, whose punishment was assessed at a fine of $250.

The prosecution is under Arts. 439 and 449 of the Vernon's Ann.Penal Code of this State, which provide:

'Article 439. 'Unlawful assembly'

'An 'unlawful assembly' is the meeting of three or more persons with intent to aid each other by violence or in any other manner either to commit an offense or illegally to deprive any person of any right or to disturb him in the enjoyment thereof.'

'Article 449. 'To prevent any person from pursuing his labor'

'If the purpose of the unlawful assembly be to prevent any person from pursuing any labor, occupation or employment, or to intimidate any person from following his daily avocation, or to interfere in any manner with the labor or employment of another, the punishment shall be by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.'

The information, omitting its formal parts, charged that on or about the 25th day of July, 1965, in Walker County, Texas, the appellants

'* * * did then and there unlawfully meet together with the intent and purpose to aid each other, and by so aiding each other did thereby occupy and sit in chairs placed at various tables and by sitting within the booths, and at the counters on the counter stools placed thereat within the Cafe Raven situated within said County and State, and thereby by intimidation with their bodies did block the use of said tables and the chairs placed thereat, and the booths and the tables placed there between, and the counters and counter stools placed thereat and thereby prevented members of the public and patrons of the said Cafe Raven to occupy and use the aforesaid tables and the chairs placed thereat, and the aforesaid booths and the tables there between, and the counters therein and the counter stools placed thereat where food and drink were regularly there served to members of the public and patrons, and said Defendants did thereby deprive and prevent ABE DABAGHI, hereinafter styled Complainant, of his right to pursue his occupation, employment and labor as

Page 130

the then owner and operator of the said Cafe Raven, and to then and thereby disturb said complainant in his said right to so operate said Cafe Raven and the employment of his labor and industry in the furtherance thereof; that is, the said complainant was then and there lawfully pursuing and engaging in the occupation, employment and labor of operating and maintaining a cafe, and the purpose of the said unlawful assembly and the intent of said defendants, engaged thereby, was then and there to prevent and deprive the said complainant from pursuing said occupation, employment and labor and to intimidate him from following his avocation and to interfere with his occupation, employment and labor * * *.'

Appellants excepted to the substance of the information on the ground that 'it does not appear from the face of the same that an offense against the law was committed * * *' and to the form of the information on the ground that 'the offense attempted to be charged in the information is not set forth in plain and intelligible words.'

Such exceptions to the information were by the court overruled, which action of the court constitutes the basis for appellants' grounds of error Nos. I and II.

As we understand appellants' contention, it is that the information failed to allege that appellants met with The intent to aid each other By violence or some other means to accomplish a prohibited objective.

A reading of the information shows it did allege that the appellants unlawfully met together with the intent and purpose to aid each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Medrano v. Allee, Civ. A. No. 67 B 36.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • June 26, 1972
    ...697 (1963). 33 Defendants have urged that our decision regarding Article 439 should be controlled by the case of Lichten v. State, 434 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). The appeal in Litchen was dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question" by the Supreme Court of the United States. Li......
  • Boyden v. Commissioner of Patents, No. 22238.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 18, 1971
    ...246, 249, 96 F.2d 518, 521 (1938). 11 Compare Brenner v. Ebbert, 130 U.S. App.D.C. 168, 170, 398 F.2d 762, 764, cert. denied 393 U.S. 926, 89 S.Ct. 259, 21 L.Ed.2d 262 12 Policy questions in this field are singularly the concern of Congress. United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.......
  • Blacklight Power, Inc. v. Dickinson, Civil Action No. 00-422(EGS).
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 15, 2000
    ...of the patent is a required administrative formality.7 In Brenner v. Ebbert, 398 F.2d 762 (D.C.Cir.1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 926, 89 S.Ct. 259, 21 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968), the D.C. Circuit stated that "if the issue fee is timely tendered, the patent must issue," and that issuance of the patent......
  • Faulk v. State, No. 56402
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 22, 1980
    ...14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965). While assembling may be quite validly regulated where its participants harbor a forbidden intent, Lichten v. State, 434 S.W.2d 128, 130-131 (Tex.Cr.App.1968), appeal dismissed 393 U.S. 86, 89 S.Ct. 259, 21 L.Ed.2d 218 (1968), or congregate in excessive numbers, Geissle......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Medrano v. Allee, Civ. A. No. 67 B 36.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • June 26, 1972
    ...697 (1963). 33 Defendants have urged that our decision regarding Article 439 should be controlled by the case of Lichten v. State, 434 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). The appeal in Litchen was dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question" by the Supreme Court of the United States. Li......
  • Boyden v. Commissioner of Patents, No. 22238.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 18, 1971
    ...246, 249, 96 F.2d 518, 521 (1938). 11 Compare Brenner v. Ebbert, 130 U.S. App.D.C. 168, 170, 398 F.2d 762, 764, cert. denied 393 U.S. 926, 89 S.Ct. 259, 21 L.Ed.2d 262 12 Policy questions in this field are singularly the concern of Congress. United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.......
  • Blacklight Power, Inc. v. Dickinson, Civil Action No. 00-422(EGS).
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 15, 2000
    ...of the patent is a required administrative formality.7 In Brenner v. Ebbert, 398 F.2d 762 (D.C.Cir.1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 926, 89 S.Ct. 259, 21 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968), the D.C. Circuit stated that "if the issue fee is timely tendered, the patent must issue," and that issuance of the patent......
  • Faulk v. State, No. 56402
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 22, 1980
    ...14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965). While assembling may be quite validly regulated where its participants harbor a forbidden intent, Lichten v. State, 434 S.W.2d 128, 130-131 (Tex.Cr.App.1968), appeal dismissed 393 U.S. 86, 89 S.Ct. 259, 21 L.Ed.2d 218 (1968), or congregate in excessive numbers, Geissle......
  • 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