Love v. State

• Decision Date: 23 February 1895
• Citation: 29 S.W. 790
• Parties: LOVE v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

29 S.W. 790

LOVE v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 23, 1895.

Appeal from Bell county court; John M. Freeman, Judge.

Charlie Love was convicted of disturbing religious worship, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. G. Love, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of disturbing religious worship, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25. The witness Potert, over appellant's objection, was permitted to testify that he (appellant) went to Potert's field, the day previous to the trial, armed with a club, assaulted Potert with it, saying: "I am going to kill you. I told you I would kill you for what you have done." Witness ran. Defendant pursued, and struck him with the club. On cross-examination, witness stated he did not know why defendant assaulted him, and knew of no threats made against him by appellant. We think, under the facts of this case, this evidence was clearly admissible. When, on the night of the disturbance averred in the indictment, the witness and Vanoy expostulated with appellant in regard to his conduct in the church, appellant became enraged, and cursed and abused them, and, on parting from them, said he would see them again. If the assault was because of the fact that Potert was prosecuting him and testifying against him, the testimony was admissible; and, under the facts of this case, we think this inference was clearly deducible. It was a relevant fact.

2. Mrs. Allimen and J. A. Hill, witnesses for the accused, were asked by him if "Vanoy had made statements to them, since this case had been pending, expressing his feelings towards defendant, and, if so, repeat such statements as near as you can?" The bill of exceptions does not indicate what reply was expected, nor does it in any way intimate what their testimony would have been. The bill cannot be considered. Willson's Cr. St. §§ 2368, 2516.

3. By the same witnesses, appellant offered to prove the words, acts, and conduct of Vanoy and Potert showing their intolerance of appellant because of theological differences of opinion between them, and the further fact that the two witnesses had ceased to attend the church of which they and Vanoy and Potert were members, because of Vanoy's and Potert's quarrelsome nature. None of their acts, words, or conduct are stated in the bill, and we are not informed as to what they were. Nor is it perceived how the fact that these church members quarreled among themselves could avail appellant on this trial. It may have been in bad taste, and indicated a want of...