Pigford v. State
| Decision Date | 15 April 1903 |
| Citation | 74 S.W. 323 |
| Parties | PIGFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Runnels County Court; T. T. Crosson, Judge.
W. A. Pigford was convicted of crime and appeals. Affirmed.
W. R. Spencer, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Motion is made to dismiss the appeal because of a defect in the recognizance in that it fails to comply with the form provided by the Legislature omitting the expression at the termination of the recognizance "in this case." The motion is sustained. Brock v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 72 S. W. 599.
The appeal is dismissed.
On Rehearing.
(May 6, 1903.)
Appellant was convicted of selling intoxicants on Sunday as the agent and employé of Hubbard. The appeal was dismissed at a former day of this term because of a defective recognizance, but on rehearing it is made to appear that a proper recognizance was given in the court below. The appeal is accordingly reinstated.
Appellant reserved a bill of exceptions to the conclusions of law and fact as found by the trial judge. The substance of the testimony shows that on Sunday appellant was in Hubbard's saloon, when the main witness for the state and others approached the bar, Hubbard being of the number, for the purpose of being treated by the main state's witness. The drinks were called for, and appellant, at the request of Hubbard, waited upon the crowd. Four of the parties drank, for which witness stated he paid 25 cents. Upon cross-examination he stated that he threw the money upon the counter; that appellant picked it up, opened the cash register, and threw the change on the counter, and that he (witness) picked up and put the change in his pocket. He was not certain, however, that appellant changed the money because he did not notice particularly; but believed he did. He was certain that appellant did pick up the money, open the cash register, and later on threw money on the counter, and that he (witness) put it in his pocket. Other witnesses testified that during the same evening appellant waited upon them. These parties upon two occasions called for the drinks, but did not pay either time. Each witness testified that he had a running account at Hubbard's saloon, and had never examined his account to ascertain whether or not these items had been charged on the books. Hubbard testified that he was the owner of the saloon, and admits requesting appellant to wait upon the first crowd, and was aware of and present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. State
...made by the barkeeper, he would be amenable under the law." P. C. art. 74; Collins v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 95, 29 S. W. 274; Pigford v. State, 74 S. W. 323. In misdemeanor cases all parties are principals; there are no accomplices. Bolton v. State, 43 S. W. 984; Rape v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. ......
- Dale v. State
-
Mallard v. State
...Cr. Proc. 1895, and does not conclude with the phrase "in this case," as provided by said article. This is necessary. Pigford v. State, 74 S. W. 323, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 827; Heinen v. State, 74 S. W. 776, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 921; Brock v. State, 72 S. W. 599, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 72; Cryer v. State, 36......
-
Bradley v. State
...dealer, and engaged in that business, and also that appellant was his agent and employé. W. A. Pigford v. State (decided at present term) 74 S. W. 323. There being no errors in the record, the judgment is DAVIDSON, P. J., dissents. * Rehearing denied June 17, 1903. ...