Tullis v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
| Citation | 41 Tex. 598 |
| Parties | J. TULLIS v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Milam. Tried below before the Hon. A. S. Broaddus.
Tullis was tried and convicted of arson. The opinion of the court carefully recites the facts, except that the letter alluded to in the opinion is not given. It is as follows:
“AUSTIN, June 18 th, 1874.
MR. GEO. F. GAGE.
SIR: I have been thinking of that matter we were talking of. Now, Mr. Gage, it is impossible for me to stay here four or six weeks idle, and no money. Now you have everything your own way, and there is no question but you can get your money, if I will get out of the way, and if you will give me a reasonable sum I will leave the country and go North where my folks are, and will pledge you my word I shall never come back or ever say a word one way or the other. I know you are safe on this matter after I leave, for no one else knows it. I don't want you to think for a minute that I am trying to scare you, for I am not, but I have that feeling about me that I have been wronged and trifled out of my hard earnings by that dirty dog, and I want to get even with him. There is nothing resting on my shoulders, and if I have to report him I shall make expenses out of it, for I know more than you could ever know. Now, Mr. Gage, do what is right, and I will leave on first train. The reason I write to you is because I can write better than I can talk. Hoping to get a reply soon, I remain your friend,
J. E. TULLIS.”
The testimony consisted entirely of evidence of the declarations of the defendant as a witness on the trial of his co-defendant Matson before a magistrate, sitting as an examining court.
No counsel for appellant.
George Clark, Attorney General, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of arson, and assigns as error “that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial.”
The evidence consists of the testimony of two persons who heard the accused testify in the mayor's court in Rockdale, on the examination of J. B. Matson on a charge of arson, and a letter written by defendant to the owner of the building burned. Matson was jointly indicted with defendant, but for some reason not appearing in the transcript of the case was not tried with defendant.
We cannot inquire into the admissibility of the evidence given on behalf of the State by the witnesses who were present when defendant testified in the examining court, no objection being made to the introduction of this evidence, instead of the record of the cause in the mayor's court.
The accused was indicted with Matson as a principal in the offense charged, and the evidence as set out in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Orrick
... ... companions, in contemplation of law he was aiding and ... abetting." "Mere consent to a crime, when no aid is ... given, and no encouragement rendered, does not amount to ... participation." 1 Whart. Crim. Law, sec. 211 d; ... White v. People , 81 Ill. 333; Tullis v ... State , 41 Tex. 598; State v. Walker , 98 Mo. 95, ... 9 S.W. 646 ... In ... order then to justify this instruction, the evidence must ... have tended to prove, that defendant was present when the ... crime was committed; that he understood the homicide would be ... ...
-
State v. Orrick
...given, and no encouragement rendered, does not amount to a participation." Whart. Crim. Law, § 211d; White v. People, 81 Ill. 333; Tullis v. State, 41 Tex. 598; State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95, 9 S. W. Rep. 646, and 11 S. W. Rep.1133. In order, then, to justify this instruction, the evidence mus......
-
Schackey v. State
...nor will the further fact that the following day she concealed her knowledge of Fisher's connection with it make her a principal. Tullis v. State, 41 Tex. 598; Ring v. State, 42 Tex. 282; Burrell v. State, 18 Tex. 713; Noftsinger v. State, 7 Tex. App. 302; Rucker v. State, Id. 550; Golden v......
-
Davis v. State
...neither is his inactive and supposed concealment of the offense. Burrell v. State, 18 Tex. 713; Truitt v. State, 8 Tex. App. 148; Tullis v. State, 41 Tex. 598; Ring v. State, 42 Tex. 282. But such significant facts as his presence in connection with his companionship, his conduct at, before......