Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1888 |
| Citation | 7 S.W. 531 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson county court; I. S. McNUTT, Judge.
The conviction was for an aggravated assault upon one Matilda Jones, a woman, and the penalty assessed was a fine of $500, and a term of 12 months in the county jail. Matilda Jones, the sole witness for the state, testified, in substance, that on the night alleged in the information, the defendant came to the kitchen of Dr. Owen's house, where she was employed, and got into a dispute with one Patterson, who was then there. He used violent and obscene language, to which witness protested; and was apparently much in liquor, as he once fell off his chair. As he refused to quit quarreling, witness reported him to Dr. Owen, who came to the kitchen, and ordered him off, and he left. Witness soon had occasion to go down stairs, and when she did so she found defendant at the foot of the stairs. He called to her to stop and wait. Witness replied that she "did not have to." Defendant said: "By God, I will see whether you do or not." He then seized witness' sleeve, and jerked her nearly to the floor, tearing off the sleeve of her dress. He did not strike, nor did he attempt to strike, witness. Witness thought he wanted to go home with her, which, as he was drinking, she was unwilling for him to do. Norman and his wife were in the kitchen at the time of the dispute between defendant and Patterson. Norman and his wife, testifying for the defense, corroborated Matilda Jones as to what occurred in the kitchen. They went home with Matilda, and, in starting, they found defendant at the foot of the stairs. They did not see him assault Matilda, nor did he at that time seize or tear the sleeve of Matilda's dress. Matilda went down stairs alone a short time before starting home. They did not know what transpired outside of the kitchen during Matilda's absence.
W. H. Coleman and J. D. Owen, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction for aggravated assault. Omitting the formal allegations, the information charges, "upon the affidavit, herewith filed, of Matilda Jones, that the said George Robinson * * * did make an assault upon her, the said Matilda Jones; the said Robinson being then and there an adult male, and the said Matilda Jones being then and there a female." The affidavit charges that George Robinson "did then and there unlawfully make an assault upon her, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v. State
...I challenge this Court to repeat such opinion as heretofore handed down." The only case which we consider in point is Robinson v. State, 25 Tex.App. 111, 7 S.W. 531, which is an opinion by Judge Hurt. The appellant in that case was drunk and raised a fuss with Matilda Jones, a female. Havin......
-
Samuel v. State
...one which would justify a severe punishment.' Stroud v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 167 S.W.2d 526 (1943). See also Robinson v. State, 25 Tex.App. 111, 7 S.W. 531, 532 (1888). Appellant also quotes from Nelson v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 632, 21 S.W.2d 1045 (1929), where this court 'There is not ......
-
Bennett v. State
...be sustained. Hartsell v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 389, 116 S. W. 1159; Smith v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 645, 104 S. W. 899; Robinson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 111, 7 S. W. 531; Andrews v. State, 13 Tex. App. 343; Davis v. State, 76 S. W. 466; Ellers v. State, 55 S. W. 813; Kemp v. State, 25 Tex. A......
-
Graham v. State, 14847.
...be sustained. Hartsell v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 389, 116 S. W. 1159; Smith v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 645, 104 S. W. 899; Robinson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 111, 7 S. W. 531; Andrews v. State, 13 Tex. App. 343; Davis v. State [Tex. Cr. App.] 76 S. W. 466; Ellers v. State [Tex. Cr. App.] 55 S. W.......