Perry v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 1896 |
| Citation | 34 S.W. 618 |
| Parties | PERRY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Denton county court; S. M. Bradley, Judge.
Bill Perry was convicted of adultery, and appeals. Affirmed.
H. C. Ferguson and R. Lee Ragsdale, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of adultery, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $150, and he prosecutes this appeal. Appellant contends that an error was committed against him, because one W. E. Durbin, a deputy sheriff of Denton county, summoned three certain talesmen as jurors in his case. The bill does not show that any objection was made at the time said officer took the process out to serve said talesmen, and does not show that any request was made by appellant that some other officer should summon said talesmen. The bill shows that after said jurors were brought in appellant challenged them, because they had been served by said Durbin, but the court overruled his challenge for cause, and then appellant challenged them peremptorily; and he states that he believes that certain other three jurors who sat in this case were not impartial jurors. The ground of objection urged by appellant to said talesmen was that they were summoned by said Durbin, and that said Durbin, on the day before this trial, made an affidavit charging Jane Howard (the alleged paramour of appellant) with the same offense, to wit, adultery. If the appellant intended by this procedure to make a challenge to the array, he should have made a motion in writing, setting forth distinctly the grounds of his challenge, and supported the same by his own affidavit, or by that of some credible person. See Code Cr. Proc. art. 626. In this case, as it seems to us, if it be conceded that he had any ground for challenge at all, he knew of this ground at the time the officer in question received the process; and if he objected to said officer summoning said talesmen because he did not believe him an impartial officer, he should have made his objection known to the court at the time, and then insisted that process be delivered to some other officer. This was not done.
Appellant also complains that Jane Howard, the alleged paramour in the act of adultery, was not permitted to testify on his behalf; and he says that, although appellant had been under prosecution for some time for said offense, no complaint and information was lodged against said Jane Howard until the day before appellant's trial, and his bill of exception states that he insisted that it should show that said prosecution against Jane Howard was instituted for the purpose of depriving him (appellant) of her testimony. The bill of exception does not show that said proceeding was instituted for any such purpose, and, in the absence of some showing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahon v. State
...out with particularity the grounds relied upon for setting the panel aside. People v. Collins, 105 Cal. 504, 39 P. 16; Perry v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 34 S.W. 618; Chitty's Criminal Law, 537; Wharton's Criminal Pleading and Practice (9th Ed.) § 607; 24 Cyc. p. 331, note 24. The third assignm......
-
Ice v. State
...before us, however, by the bill of exceptions and the record does not disclose a transaction of the character mentioned. See Perry v. State, 34 S. W. 618. Such of the special charges requested as were applicable to the issues raised are embodied in the main The judgment of the district cour......
-
Mahon v. State
...out with particularity the grounds relied upon for setting the panel aside. People v. Collins, 105 Cal. 504, 39 Pac. 16; Perry v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 34 S. W. 618; 1 Chitty's Criminal Law, 537; Wharton's Criminal Pleading and Practice (9th Ed.) § 607; 24 Cyc. p. 331, note The third assign......
- White v. State