Tippens v. State
| Decision Date | 19 January 1898 |
| Parties | TIPPENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Tarrant county court; George W. Armstrong, Judge.
W. A. Tippens was convicted of slander, and appeals. Reversed.
W. R. Parker, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of slander, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100, and prosecutes this appeal.
The indictment alleged that: "W. A. Tippens * * * did orally, falsely, and maliciously, and wantonly, impute to a female in this state, to wit, Mary L. Rice, a want of chastity, to wit, the said W. A. Tippens did then and there, in the presence and hearing of J. F. Bowman and divers other persons, falsely, maliciously, and wantonly say, of and concerning the said Mary L. Rice, that she (meaning the said Mary L. Rice) was not a decent lady (meaning thereby that the said Mary L. Rice was not a virtuous lady); that she (meaning the said Mary L. Rice) was a whore,—contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state." The state introduced J. F. Bowman, and proved by him that appellant said that "Mary L. Rice is not a decent lady." Appellant said nothing to this witness in regard to Mrs. Rice being a whore. The indictment does not allege that he stated that Mrs. Rice was a whore, but, by way of innuendo, this was alleged as a conclusion from what he said. Be this as it may, there is no proof that appellant stated to Bowman that Mrs. Rice was a whore.
Upon the trial, over the objections of the defendant, the state proved by B. F. Nelson that appellant "said, of and concerning Ivy Rice, that she had been pregnant a time or two." This evidence was admitted by the court to show animus on the part of the defendant towards Mary L. Rice. Evidence was introduced, over the objections of the defendant, that Ivy Rice bore a good reputation for chastity. The evidence as to what appellant may have said about Ivy Rice, and that in regard to her good character, was clearly inadmissible, and ought not to have been admitted.
The court instructed the jury: "If you believe from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, W. A. Tippens, did, in the county of Tarrant and state of Texas, at any time within two years next preceding the filing of the indictment herein (which was on June 17, 1896), in the presence and hearing of J. F. Bowman, or in the presence and hearing of other persons, orally, falsely, and maliciously, or orally, falsely, and wantonly, impute to Mary L. Rice, a female, a want of chastity by saying, of and concerning said Mary L. Rice, that `she (meaning said Mary L. Rice) was not a decent lady,' meaning thereby that the said Mary L. Rice was not a virtuous lady, then you will find the defendant guilty as charged," etc. These instructions were excepted to at the time and a bill of exceptions was reserved to the giving of the same. The appellant had been informed by the indictment that he had slandered Mrs. Mary L. Rice by imputing to her a want of chastity, in saying, in the presence of J. F. Bowman and divers other persons, that she was not a decent lady. Being thus notified, it was his duty to prepare to meet this particular charge, and no other. He had a right, if he could do so, to show the circumstances attending the making of the statement assigned for slander. He may have been prepared to show that this statement was not made maliciously or wantonly, but under circumstances which would negative malice or wantonness. But he was not informed of any other statement assigned as slander. Now, while it is true, in passing upon whether the charge made by him against Mrs. Mary L. Rice was made maliciously or wantonly, other statements might be looked to, yet the court had no right to instruct the jury to convict him if they believed that he had made the statement to other persons besides Bowman and others. This charge was erroneous, and calculated to injure the rights of the defendant, and, being excepted to at the time, is reversible error.
Upon the cross-examination of Dr. Robert Smith by appellant, it was proved that he had heard reports...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Westbrook
...Mo.App. 560, 119 S.W. 52; Kunz v. Hartwig, 151 Mo.App. 94, 131 S.W. 721; Lemaster v. Ellis, 173 Mo.App. 332, 158 S.W. 904; Tippins v. State (Tex.), 43 S.W. 1000; Parsons v. Henry, 177 Mo.App. 329, 164 S.W. John L. Hodge for respondent. There is no merit to appellant's contention that the St......
-
Lemaster v. Ellis
... ... and Libel (2 Ed.), p. 290, sec. 4; Ukman v. Daily Record ... Co., 189 Mo. 394; Tippens v. State, 43 S.W ... 1000; Kenworthy v. Brown, 92 N.Y.S. 34 ... McNatt & McNatt for respondent ... (1) The ... ...
-
Simer v. State
...State, 30 Tex. App. 462 ; Berry v. State, 27 Tex. App. 483 ." And he reverses and remands the case because of this variance. In Tippens v. State, 43 S. W. 1000, Judge Henderson, speaking for the court, holds: "The indictment alleged that: `W. A. Tip. pens ____ did orally, falsely, and malic......
-
Hasley v. State
...17 S. W. 1073; Rogers v. State, 30 Tex. App. 462, 17 S. W. 548; Berry v. State, 27 Tex. App. 483, 11 S. W. 521. In the case of Tippins v. State, 43 S. W. 1000, the variance held to be fatal was less apparent than that here For this error it is ordered that the judgment of conviction be, and......