Taylor v. State

• Decision Date: 07 January 1914
• Citation: 164 S.W. 844
• Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

164 S.W. 844

TAYLOR v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

January 7, 1914.

On Motion for Rehearing, March 4, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Rusk County; W. C. Buford, Judge.

Jim Taylor was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Reversed.

Futch & Tipps, of Henderson, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter; his punishment being assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.

There is a purported statement of facts in the record signed by the attorneys but not approved by the judge. The clerk certifies that it is a correct copy of the original statement of facts on file in his office. As the statement of facts is presented, it cannot be considered for want of the approval of the judge.

The other question raised in the motion for new trial is based on the failure of the court to grant an application for continuance. There was a bill of exceptions reserved to the ruling of the court refusing the continuance; but, in the absence of statement of facts, we are unable to revise the ruling of the court refusing to continue the case.

As the matter is presented, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, with the maximum punishment of five years assessed. On a former day of the term the conviction was affirmed without considering the evidence. On motion for rehearing this matter was cured, and as now presented the facts are before the court for consideration.

There is but one question presented, to wit, the refusal of the court to grant a continuance. Without going into a detailed statement of the facts, it is shown, in substance, that this difficulty occurred at Holly Spring in Rusk county. The people assembled were negroes, and was a gathering of what is termed the F. I. S. Society. This seems to have been a society among the negroes. The deceased came to the place drunk. He was a member of the society. He raised a disturbance and went away. He came back riding a mule, holloaing and disturbing the people. As he rode up, one of the negroes present took a knife from him which he had in his hand. He then remarked with an oath that he had another one, and obtained that from his pocket. This was also taken from him. He got down from his mule, and, after talking with the party awhile, his two knives were returned to him. While talking he remarked that some damn son of a bitch had stolen his whisky. Appellant asked if he meant him. He says, "Did you get it?" Appellant said, "No." Deceased said, "You are a damned liar." Appellant went down to a branch for some purpose. In the meantime John Johnson got hold of the deceased and was carrying him away, urging him to behave himself and not disturb the people; that he might get in trouble with legal proceedings. About this time, and while Johnson was talking with him and walking along, appellant came from the branch and approached Johnson and deceased. He asked deceased why he had accused him of stealing his whisky and talked to him in the manner he did. Deceased again accused him of stealing his whisky, and hot words ensued, which afterwards ended in the difficulty in which deceased received wounds from which he later died. The testimony seems to be practically without contradiction up to the immediate facts of the difficulty. It seems from the testimony that John Johnson, deceased, and appellant were the parties who were immediately present. The other...