State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 01 January 1871 |
| Citation | 35 Tex. 348 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ROLAND HILL. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Indictment for assault charged the offense to have been committed “on or about” a certain day. Held, that this was a sufficient averment of the time. The case of The State v. Elliot, 34 Tex. 148, to the same effect, cited with approval.
APPEAL from Anderson. Tried below before the Hon. L. H. Cooper.
The opinion states the case. Another case for a breach of the peace was brought up by the state upon the same error, and is reversed in almost identical terms, and is therefore not reported. It was the case of The State v. Tom Murchison.
W. Alexander, Attorney General, for the state.
T. T. Gammage, for the appellee.
The indictment in this case charged that the defendant, on or about the eighteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, an assault did make, etc. We think the time of the commission of the offense is charged as specifically and as definitely as the statute requires. This question was carefully considered and definitely settled at the last term of this court, in the case of The State v. Elliott. The court therefore erred in sustaining the motion to quash, for that reason. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benson v. State
...allege that the crime was committed "on or about" a certain date. State v. McMickle, 34 Tex. 676; State v. Elliot, 34 Tex. 148; State v. Hill, 35 Tex. 348, 349; Johnson v. State, 1 Tex. App. 118. Without exception, as far as we know, the rule has been laid down and adhered to that the exact......
- Hollingsworth v. Bagley