Riddle v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1891 |
| Citation | 17 S.W. 1073 |
| Parties | RIDDLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Fannin county court; WILLIAM A. BRAMLETTE, Judge.
Information against Jim Riddle for slander. Judgment of conviction. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Evans & Evans, for appellant. Richard H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The slander charged in the information was that the defendant did, "in the presence and hearing of one Mrs. Mintie Clarke and one Wayman Clarke and divers other persons, falsely, maliciously, and wantonly say of and concerning her, the said Mary Christian, that she was not a virtuous woman, and that he, the said Jim Riddle, had seen her, the said Mary Christian, under suspicious circumstances, to-wit, that he had seen said Mary Christian at the back of a certain field, in company with three certain men, to-wit, two Rankin men and one Sulivan man; meaning thereby that they were there for carnal intercourse and illicit purposes," etc. In order to sustain a conviction for slander, it is necessary that the alleged slanderous words should be proven, substantially at least, as charged. Frisby v. State, 26 Tex. App. 180, 9 S. W. Rep. 463. There is no direct and positive testimony that the defendant said in so many words that Mrs. Christian was not "a virtuous woman;" and this allegation is not proven by the testimony of Wayman Clarke, who testified that the defendant stated in the presence of himself and wife that "Mrs. Mary Christian was not a virtuous woman, by stating that he, the said defendant, had seen Mrs. Mary Christian at the back of a certain field with three certain men, to-wit, two Rankin men and one Sulivan man." This was a mere conclusion or opinion of the witness that defendant had stated that she was not "a virtuous woman" from the fact that she was seen by him behind the field with the two Rankin men and the one Sulivan man. Such conclusion does not necessarily follow from the language used. As we have seen, however, the information charged also that defendant had said "he had seen her under suspicious circumstances." There is no direct and positive proof of this allegation that he said "he had seen her under suspicious circumstances." It is further alleged in the information, however, that he said he had seen Mary Christian at the back of a certain field in company with three certain men, to-wit, two Rankin men and one Sulivan man, and the information further charged that he meant by that "they were there for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simer v. State
...as substantially alleged must be substantially proved. Conlee v. State, 14 Tex. App. 222; Frisby v. State, 26 Tex. App. 180 ; Riddle v. State, 30 Tex. App. 425 ; Rogers v. State, 30 Tex. App. 462 ; Berry v. State, 27 Tex. App. 483 ." And he reverses and remands the case because of this In T......
-
Brown v. State
...1551; Whart., Cr. Law, sec. 505. 2. Dr. Ruff's testimony as to the position of deceased was not admissible. Whart., Cr. Ev., sec. 418; 17 S.W. 1073; 39 245; 41 Me. 177; 66 Am. Dec., 219; 19 Wend., 569; 1 Denio, 281; 24 Ark. 251. 3. It was error to admit Jeff Worthen's testimony and exclude ......
-
Hill v. State
...what is alleged and what was said. Frisby v. State, 26 Tex. App. 180, 9 S. W. 463; Conlee v. State, 14 Tex. App. 222; Riddle v. State, 30 Tex. App. 425, 17 S. W. 1073; Rogers v. State, 30 Tex. App. 462, 17 S. W. 548; Berry v. State, 27 Tex. App. 483, 11 S. W. 521; Humbard v. State, 21 Tex. ......
-
Hasley v. State
...alleged must be substantially proved. Conlee v. State, 14 Tex. App. 222; Frisby v. State, 26 Tex. App. 180, 9 S. W. 463; Riddle v. State, 30 Tex. App. 425, 17 S. W. 1073; Rogers v. State, 30 Tex. App. 462, 17 S. W. 548; Berry v. State, 27 Tex. App. 483, 11 S. W. 521. In the case of Tippins ......