McDonough v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Parties | BENJAMIN F. MCDONOUGH v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
A recognizance to answer “an indictment now pending in said court against him, for betting money upon a certain game with cards,” is bad, in that it recites a charge which is not an indictable offense, and the judgment on the scire facias, which had gone by default, was reversed and dismissed.
Objections apparent of record, which go to the foundation of the action, are equally available on error, as in arrest of judgment.
Quære, whether one who has been district attorney cannot afterwards appear against the state, in cases commenced by him while in office?
Error from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. Charles A. Frazer.
On the 14th of December, 1855, the plaintiff in error entered into recognizance in the district court, conditioned that Benjamin McDonough should appear at the next term to answer to an indictment “now pending in said court against him, for betting money upon a certain game with cards.” At the next term, McDonough failing to appear, judgment nisi was entered on the recognizance and scire facias issued. At the spring term, 1857, the parties having been served and failing to appear, judgment final was entered against them by default. A motion in arrest of judgment was filed, signed S. P. Donley, Armstrong and Flanagan for motion, on the ground, mainly, that the charge recited in the recognizance was not an offense for which an indictment would lie. There was no order disposing of this motion. But it appeared by a bill of exceptions that S. P. Donley was the only one present of the attorneys whose names were signed to the motion, and that the court refused to permit him to present the motion, on the ground that it appeared to the court from the records thereof, that said Donley was the district attorney at the time of the indictment, recognizance, forfeiture thereof, and issue of scire facias thereon, to which ruling defendant excepts, etc.
Donley & Anderson, for plaintiff in error, cited Daily v. The State, 4 Tex. 417; The State v. Cotton, 6 Id. 425;Cotton v. The State, 7 Id. 547; and argued that the court erred in refusing to permit defendants to present their motion in arrest of judgment, by their attorney S. P. Donley.
Attorney General, for defendant in error.
It is unnecessary so revise the action of the court refusing to entertain the motion in arrest of judgment. The writ of error has been prosecuted by other counsel, whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sauer
... ... chief or first judge of common pleas, mayor of a city, ... justice of the peace, or other magistrate, of any state ... where he may be found, and agreeably to the usual mode or ... process against offenders in such state, and at the expense ... of the United ... State, 4 ... Tex.App. 554. See, also, State v. Cotton, 6 ... Tex. 426; Cotton v. State, 7 Tex. 548; Tousey v ... State, 8 Tex. 174; McDonough v. State, 19 Tex ... 293; Foster v. State, 27 Tex. 236; State v ... Gordon, 41 Tex. 510; Sively v. State, 44 Tex ... 274; McLaren v. State, 3 ... ...
-
State v. Howley
...intent. Therefore a recognizance to answer a charge of having stolen goods in possession is void." State v. Cotton, 6 Tex. 425; M'Donough v. State, 19 Tex. 293. complaint will lie in such a case as recited in this recognizance. State v. Learned, 47 Me. 429; State v. Connelly, 63 Me. 214; St......
-
Harkey v. State
...eo nomine. The motion of the assistant attorney general is sustained. State v. Cotton, 6 Tex. 425; Cotton v. State, 7 Tex. 547; McDonough v. State, 19 Tex. 293. Appeal ...
- Harland v. Hendricks