Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 04 November 1891 |
| Citation | 17 S.W. 408 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Cass county; JOHN L. SHEPPARD, Judge.
Indictment of John A. Williams. Verdict of murder in the first degree. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
O. C. Potter and R. D. Harrell, for appellant. Richard H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted in the district court of Bowie county for the murder of one Mike Hackett. In substance, it was alleged in the indictment that the murder was committed by appellant in the perpetration of a railroad train robbery committed by him on the 9th day of June, 1890, by which, in the derailing the cars for the purpose of the robbery, the said Mike Hackett was killed. It is also charged in the indictment that the said defendant, after the train was derailed, robbed one Neblet, the express messenger on the train, of certain property and money in his possession, which was being transported by the express company for certain parties whose names are mentioned. A motion was made to quash the indictment for uncertainty and insufficiency. This motion was overruled, and we think rightly, the indictment being sufficient to charge the offense of murder in the perpetration of robbery. The record before us is a very voluminous one, containing more than 200 pages, most of which is taken up by the statement of facts. There are only three bills of exception reserved to matters transpiring at the trial.
The first bill was to the competency of the juror Murphey. The court's explanation to this bill of exceptions shows that the juror answered the questions propounded to him on his voir dire, establishing his competency fully, and, even if such had not been the case, it is not made to appear in the record that defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges before the jury was completed, and, such being the case, he would have had no right to complain, even if the juror had been incompetent.
Defendant's second bill of exceptions was reserved to questions asked the witness Mrs. McDaniel by the district attorney. One McDaniel, husband of this witness, had been previously tried and convicted of this same offense, he being a party to the robbery. His wife, when put on the stand by the defendant, was asked by the district attorney, on cross-examination, if she knew the result of the trial of her husband, and she answered she did; whereupon the district attorney further asked her what was the result of the said trial, to which def...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renn v. State
...Cr. R. 498, 36 S. W. 475, 66 Am. St. Rep. 812; Alexander v. State, 21 Tex. App. 406, 17 S. W. 139, 57 Am. Rep. 617; Williams v. State, 30 Tex. App. 367, 17 S. W. 408; Terrell v. State, 25 S. W. 769; Harding v. State, 60 Tex. App. 327, 131 S. W. 1092; Doss v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 48, 95 S. ......
-
Walsh v. Winston Bros. Co.
... ... 777; Anarchists' Case, 122 Ill. 1, 3 Am. St ... 320, 12 N.E. 865, 17 N.E. 898; Salazar v. Taylor, 18 ... Colo. 538, 33 P. 369; Williams v. State, 30 Tex ... App. 354, 17 S.W. 408; Davidson v. Bordeaux, 15 Mont. 245, 38 ... P. 1075.) ... STEWART, ... J., AILSHIE, J ... ...
-
Fraser v. State
...death. For example, in Williams v. State , a group of train robbers deliberately wrecked a train, resulting in loss of life. 30 Tex.App. 354, 17 S.W. 408 (1891).23 Between the turn of the century and the enactment of the 1974 Texas Penal Code, there were few significant developments in the ......
-
Moore v. State
...it is also stated that the remarks were in reply to the remarks of defendant's counsel. Vincent v. State, 55 S. W. 819; Williams v. State, 30 Tex. App. 354, 17 S. W. 408. 11. There is no bill of exception reserved to the action of the court in overruling the application for a continuance; c......