Robertson v. State
| Decision Date | 06 June 1888 |
| Citation | 8 S.W. 659 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Bell county court; J. M. ROSBOROUGH, Judge.
Montieth & Furman, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
A complaint without a jurat will not support an information. Scott v. State, 9 Tex. App. 434. A jurat is the certificate of the officer before whom the complaint is made, stating that the same was sworn to and subscribed by the affiant before him, and it must be signed officially by such officer. In this case the original paper, which purports to be the complaint upon which the information is based, is sent up with and incorporated in the record. Upon an inspection of it, we find that it is not verified by a jurat. What purports to be a jurat is signed, "W. H. EDELL;" and following this name are some pen-marks which resemble the letter "W" more than any other letter or letters. This certainly does not constitute an official signature, and adds no more verity than if there had been no signature thereto whatever. It will not do for the courts to sanction such loose practice in proceedings which jeopardize the liberty of the citizen. Because the complaint is fatally defective, the judgment is reversed, and the prosecution is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stork v. State
...2 Tex. App. 503. The Morris Case is followed by Dishongh v. State, 4 Tex. App. 158, Scott v. State, 9 Tex. App. 434, Robertson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 529, 8 S. W. 659, and Neiman v. State, 29 Tex. App. 360, 16 S. W. 253, all of which correctly say that a complaint must show to have been sig......
-
Etheridge v. State
...269, 479, 972; Scott v. State, 9 Tex. App. 434; Morris v. State, 2 Tex. App. 502; Dishongh v. State, 4 Tex. App. 158; Robertson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 529, 8 S. W. 659; Neiman v. State, 29 Tex. App. 360, 16 S. W. 253; Jennings v. State, 30 Tex. App. 428, 18 S. W. 90; and many other cases. A......
-
Stacy v. State
...App. 434; Neiman v. State, 29 Tex. App. 360, 16 S. W. 253; Montgomery v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 303, 131 S. W. 1087; Robertson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 529, 8 S. W. 659; Jennings v. State, 30 Tex. App. 428, 18 S. W. 90. An amendment of the complaint is permissible; but, where the fault consist......
-
Carpenter v. State, 24301.
...the officer before whom it was made, and also that, in the absence of a valid complaint, there can be no valid information. In Robertson v. State , 8 S.W. 659, it was "`A complaint without a jurat will not support an information. * * * A jurat is the certificate of the officer before whom t......