Skinner v. State
| Decision Date | 29 November 1911 |
| Citation | 141 S.W. 231 |
| Parties | SKINNER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Sabine County Court; T. R. Smith, Judge.
Alonzo Skinner was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J. H. McGown and Goodrich & Lewis, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law.
The statement of facts is not incorporated in the transcript, but is sent up in a separate document, and we suppose, by the file mark of the county clerk being upon the same, that it is the original statement of facts filed in the court below. Under our statute and the decisions of the different courts, this statement of facts cannot be considered.
The first bill of exceptions recites that, before appellant announced ready for trial, he moved to quash the indictment on the ground that said indictment consisted of two instruments, or a portion of two instruments, pasted together—that is to say, that the alleged indictment has a separate piece, cut from another and different instrument, pasted on the face of said indictment, supposedly to be used and read as a part of the indictment; that the indictment in its present state was a mutilated instrument, because it consisted of parts of two separate instruments, pasted one upon the other; that by reason of this condition of the indictment it was insufficient in law and void, because not in compliance with the terms of the statute; that, by reason of the condition of the indictment, defendant does not know who pasted said instruments together, nor by what authority the pasting was done. This is in no way verified by the record. The original instrument does not accompany the transcript. The indictment as copied in the record does not disclose any irregularity, but appears to be in ordinary form.
The second bill of exceptions recites: After the court examined the transcript in the case, finding the same was a proper one and was filed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCoy v. State
...in overruling the motion when it was renewed upon the present hearing. Cauthern v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 65 S. W. 96; Skinner v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 141 S. W. 231. Appellant interposed the plea of former jeopardy, based upon the ground that the court, on a former occasion, after impan......
-
Lynch v. State
...S. W. 791, Wagoner v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 180, 140 S. W. 339, Jenkins v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 141 S. W. 222, and Skinner v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 141 S. W. 231, construing article 844, Vernon's Code Cr. Proc., the motion must be In bill of exceptions No. 3 it is made to appear th......
-
Drake v. State
...140 S. W. 339; Morris v. State, 140 S. W. 775; Brogdon v. State, 140 S. W. 352; Jenkins v. State (two cases) 141 S. W. 222, 223; Skinner v. State, 141 S. W. 231. The only questions attempted to be raised by the appellant cannot be considered without a statement of the facts. This is in acco......
-
Graham v. State, 20762.
...case, and the failure of the clerk to place his name thereon, showing when filed, could be remedied nunc pro tunc. See Skinner v. State, 64 Tex.Cr.R. 84, 141 S. W. 231; also Branch's Penal Code, p. 265, and many cases there The gist of appellant's complaint lies in the fact that he was arre......