Wampler v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1890 |
| Citation | 13 S.W. 144 |
| Parties | WAMPLER <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Erath county; C. K. BELL, Judge.
T. B. King and M. F. Martin, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
The charging part of the indictment is as follows: "That Charles Wampler and T. A. Parker, on the 15th day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, in the county of Erath, and state of Texas, then and there one certain horse, not their own, nor the property of either of them, but the same then and there being the corporeal, personal property of D. D. Anderson, from the possession of the said owner, without the consent of the said owner, with the intent to deprive the said owner of the value of the same, and with the intent to appropriate it to the use and benefit of them, the said Charles Wamplene and J. A. Parker, did then and there fraudulently take, steal, and carry away." A motion in arrest of judgment based upon the supposed insufficiency of the indictment was overruled. It will be observed that the names of the defendants, as first stated in the indictment, are differently stated in charging the intent; that is, as first stated, the Christian name of Parker is while in charging the intent it is alleged to be and the surname of Wampler is alleged to be "Wamplene." This variance in the names was made the specific ground of the motion in arrest of judgment, and is insisted upon by counsel for defendants as a fatal defect in the indictment.
While the indictment appears to have been carelessly and awkwardly drawn, still, we think, it must be held substantially sufficient. The defendants' names were alleged correctly in the first instance. In repeating them they are referred to as "them, the said J. A. Parker and Charles Wamplene." In Musquez v. State, 41 Tex. 226, it was held that where the name of a defendant had been first stated correctly, but afterwards stated incorrectly as to his Christian name, the incorrect statement of his Christian name might be rejected without affecting the indictment. And it has been held that the same rule applies to the surname of a defendant. Cotton v. State, 4 Tex. 260. In this indictment, therefore, under the authority of the cases above cited, the names of the defendants having been first correctly alleged, the incorrect statement of the Christian name of Parker, and of the surname of Wampler, may be rejected without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloch v. State
...appellant said, "I knew at the time I bargained for it, and knew when I paid for it, it was stolen off the train." Wampler v. State, 28 Tex. App. 353, 13 S. W. 144; Whitehead v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 124, 90 S. W. 876; and cases cited in section 203, Branch's Criminal The only other bill in......
-
Johnson v. State
...as required by the court's charge and the law, and the court did not err in not charging on circumstantial evidence. Wampler v. State, 28 Tex. App. 353, 13 S. W. 144; Thompson v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 223, 26 S. W. 198; Kidwell v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 267, 33 S. W. 342; Rios v. State, 39 T......
-
Gutierrez v. State
...circumstantial evidence. White v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 397; Oakley v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 361, 214 S.W.2d 298; Wampler v. State, 28 Tex.App. 352, 13 S.W. 144; Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 45 S.W. 494; Rios v. State, 39 Tex.Cr.R. 675, 47 S.W. 987; Rios v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 48......
-
Johnson v. State
...direct evidence against accused comes from an accomplice it does not require a charge on circumstantial evidence. See Mampler v. State, 28 Tex.App. 352, 13 S.W. 144; Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 45 S.W. 494; Rios v. State, 39 Tex.Cr.R. 675, 47 S.W. 987; and Martinez v. State, 61 Tex. Cr.......