Shackelford v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtDEVINE
Citation43 Tex. 138
PartiesDICK SHACKELFORD v. THE STATE.
Decision Date01 January 1875

43 Tex. 138

DICK SHACKELFORD
v.
THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1875.



APPEAL from Johnson. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Hood.

There is nothing in the facts of this case, which are somewhat voluminous, that make their statement necessary to a proper understanding of the opinion.

George Clark, Attorney General, for the State.


DEVINE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

In this case appellant was convicted on the charge of having stolen a mule, the property of Ambrose House.

The defendant's motions in arrest of judgment and for a

[43 Tex. 139]

new trial being overruled, it is brought before us on six bills of exceptions, and the following assignments of error: 1st. That “the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a continuance.” “2d. The court erred in the admission of and rejection of testimony, and to the ruling in regard to the closing speech of the district attorney, all as shown in the bills of exceptions.” “3d. The court erred in giving instructions to the jury, and refusing the instructions asked by defendant.”

The first assignment of error requires a reversal of the judgment. The defendant was indicted on the 12th day of August, 1874. On the 26th of the same month the cause, among others, was called for such action “as to the court seemed lawful.” When defendant's counsel moved the court to grant a continuance until the next term, the affidavit in support of the motion stating that Elliott and Russell, residents of Comanche county, and D. B. Blackburn, a resident of Parker county, and E. Golding, a resident of Johnson county, were material witnesses for his defense; that he had used due diligence to procure their attendance by causing attachments to issue from the district clerk's office on the day of his indictment by the grand jury; that they were duly mailed; that, not content with this diligence, his attorney sent one Van Meredith with additional attachments to Comanche county; that the witnesses were temporarily absent; that the attachment to Parker county for Blackburn was returned not served; that he was informed a second attachment had been sent for Blackburn by order of the court, and not yet returned; that a subpœna had been issued for Golding, a resident of the county, a week before, and not served, Golding being temporarily absent in Hill county, and facts were stated that, if shown on the trial, would have been material to his defense.

The affidavit stated all and more than is required on the first application for a continuance, and nothing appears

[43 Tex. 140]

from the exception taken that shows what was stated was not true. The only question raised was the supposed want of diligence in securing the attendance of the witnesses. The sheriff and magistrate who committed the accused stated he had been committed, in default of a thousand dollars' bail, to the county jail on the 28th of March, 1874; that he remained for safe-keeping in Hood county jail until the indictment was presented, when he was removed on that day...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1899
    ...147; Weadock v. Kennedy, 80 Wis. 449, 50 N.W. 393; People v. Strong, 30 Cal. 151; People v. Smallman, 55 Cal. 185; Shackelford v. State, 43 Tex. 138; Addison v. State, 48 Ala. 478; Home Benefit Assn. v. Sargent, 142 U.S. 691, 12 S.Ct. 332; Eames v. Kaiser, 142 U.S. 488, 12 S.Ct. 302; Gilmer......
  • Johnson v. State, No. 13739.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 26 Noviembre 1930
    ...occupy undue space. The question is not debatable. See Vernon's Tex. C. C. P. art. 728, note 2; Branch's P. C. § 91; Shackelford v. State, 43 Tex. 138; Pharr v. State, 9 Tex. App. 134; Sager v. State, 11 Tex. App. 113; Gaither v. State, 21 Tex. App. 539, 1 S. W. 456. See, also, recent case ......
  • Ridley v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 1 Enero 1875
    ...that the District Court erred in requiring him to do it in this mandamus proceeding. The clerk had the right to appeal from the judgment [43 Tex. 138]rendered against him, as was held by this court in the case of Griffin v. Royston, 42 Tex., 566. REVERSED AND...
3 cases
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1899
    ...147; Weadock v. Kennedy, 80 Wis. 449, 50 N.W. 393; People v. Strong, 30 Cal. 151; People v. Smallman, 55 Cal. 185; Shackelford v. State, 43 Tex. 138; Addison v. State, 48 Ala. 478; Home Benefit Assn. v. Sargent, 142 U.S. 691, 12 S.Ct. 332; Eames v. Kaiser, 142 U.S. 488, 12 S.Ct. 302; Gilmer......
  • Johnson v. State, No. 13739.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 26 Noviembre 1930
    ...occupy undue space. The question is not debatable. See Vernon's Tex. C. C. P. art. 728, note 2; Branch's P. C. § 91; Shackelford v. State, 43 Tex. 138; Pharr v. State, 9 Tex. App. 134; Sager v. State, 11 Tex. App. 113; Gaither v. State, 21 Tex. App. 539, 1 S. W. 456. See, also, recent case ......
  • Ridley v. Henderson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 1 Enero 1875
    ...that the District Court erred in requiring him to do it in this mandamus proceeding. The clerk had the right to appeal from the judgment [43 Tex. 138]rendered against him, as was held by this court in the case of Griffin v. Royston, 42 Tex., 566. REVERSED AND...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT