Stalcup v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8522.) |
| Citation | 269 S.W. 1044 |
| Parties | STALCUP v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Eastland County Court at Law; J. H. Jones, Judge.
A. C. Stalcup was convicted of permitting the display of a theatrical performance on Sunday for which an admission fee was charged, and he appeals. Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
The offense charged is that the appellant, being the proprietor of a public amusement, namely, a theater, permitted it to be open for the purpose of amusement on Sunday and permitted the display of a theatrical performance, namely, a motion picture exhibition, for which an admission fee was charged. The evidence seems to sustain these averments. A recital of it is deemed unnecessary.
The court heard evidence on the motion to quash the information and is not shown to have been in error in overruling it. The complaint and information were pinned together and delivered to the clerk at the same time, and the file mark indorsed upon but one. The papers having been delivered to the clerk for filing, they were not vitiated by his failure to place his file mark upon them. Upon the evidence heard, the court was authorized to determine that the complaint and information were filed with the clerk, and that it was his duty to place his file mark upon them. There was some evidence that they were handed to the clerk by E. A. Bills, who was not the county attorney, but was assisting in the case.
Whether the sentiment expressed by venireman Mills against the violation of the Sunday law went to the extent of his disqualification need not be determined for the reason that it is not made to appear that he served on the jury, nor that the challenges available to the appellant under the law were exhausted.
The complaint of the receipt in evidence of a document signed by A. C. Stalcup in compliance with chapter 73 of the General Laws of the 37th Legislature (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1922, arts. 5950½-5950½d) is that the introduction of the original without proof of its signature was unauthorized. The objection made was that the signature was not proved. This is not certified to be a fact by the trial judge. The recitals in the objection made do not dispense with the necessity that the judge certify to the facts upon which the objection is founded. Conger v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 327, 140 S. W. 1112.
The motion to quash the array of the jury panel is upon the ground that there is not a city of 20,000 inhabitants or more in Eastland county as shown by the last census. It was shown that the largest town in the county contained something over 14,000 inhabitants. It is not shown that there were not other towns, the aggregate of whose population, together with that of Ranger, the largest town, would not have exceeded 20,000. The population of the county, as shown by the last census, is over 58,000. The statute designating the counties in which the jury wheel shall operate uses this language:
"That between the 1st and 15th days of August of each year, in all counties in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pierce
...Tex.Crim. 369, 334 S.W.2d 291, 292 (1960); see also Aleman v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. 265, 284 S.W.2d 719 (1956); Stalcup v. State, 99 Tex.Crim. 415, 269 S.W. 1044, 1045 (1925). When the assistant or deputy is authorized by law to administer the oath himself, he may not administer it in the na......
-
Neal v. State, 63819
...the term of court. Furthermore, because appellant has again failed to show he was harmed, there is no reversible error. Stalcup v. State, 269 S.W. 1044 (Tex.Cr.App.1925). Appellant's fourth ground of error is Appellant claims a fifth ground of error as follows: "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALL......
-
Moore v. State
...Wilkins v. State, 33 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 26 S.W. 409. See, also, Goodman v. State, 85 Tex. Cr.R. 279, 212 S.W. 171; and Stalcup v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 415, 269 S.W. 1044. It follows that the information was not defective in the particular Policemen of the city of Lubbock arrested appellant about......
-
Smith v. State
...District Attorney, McLennan County, Texas.' Reliance is had upon Aleman v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 265, 284 S.W.2d 719; Stalcup v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 415, 269 S.W. 1044; Anthony v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 235 S.W. 578; Goodman v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 279, 212 S.W. 171; and Arbetter v. State, ......