Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 31 October 1867 |
| Parties | DAVID WILLIAMS v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Since the 31st December, 1866, the county and district courts have had concurrent jurisdiction of violent assaults and other misdemeanors under the grade of felony. Const. 1866, Pas. Dig. pp. 936, 937, §§ 16, 17; Acts 1866, p. 44, § 3.
An indictment which states that the jurors were sworn, and charged to inquire into, and true presentments make of crimes and offenses cognizable in the district courts, committed within the body of the county of Collin, and state of Texas, is sufficient. Pas. Dig. art. 2863, note 720.
If the indictment was found by a grand jury of Collin county, it is a necessary sequence, of both fact and law, that the jurisdiction of the offense appertains to the courts of Collin county.
APPEAL from Collin. The case was tried before Hon. W. T. G. WEAVER, one of the district judges.
The case turned upon the propriety of overruling the motion to quash the indictment. The grounds are stated in the brief of the appellee and the opinion of the court. The defendant was found guilty of an aggravated assault and battery, and fined $100; and he appealed from the judgment.
Joseph Bledsoe, for appellant. 1. The statute prescribes nine requisites in an indictment: the third one is, that it must appear to be the act of the grand jury of the proper county. Now, it is respectfully submitted, that the grand jurors for the state of Texas are not the grand jurors for the county of Collin, in which the offense, in this case, is charged to have been committed; the caption of the indictment constituting no part of it. Code Cr. Proc. art. 395; English v. State, 4 Tex. 125.
2. The indictment in this case does not, from any affirmative act of the grand jury, appear to have been presented in any court having jurisdiction of the offense. It is true, that the place where the offense was committed is charged in accordance with subdivision 5 of article 395 of the code of criminal procedure; but it does not appear that there was any attempt to comply with subdivision 2 of said article. This defect is made by subdivision 1 of article 488 a special ground of exception.
William Alexander, Attorney General, for the state. That the indictment is substantially sufficient, may be seen by reference to the cases cited in Paschal's Digest, pages 509, 510, in note 720.
An mdictment was found in this case by the grand jury of Collin county, against the plaintiff in error, for an aggravated assault and battery upon one William Linehan. It was afterwards tried in the district court of the county, and a verdict and judgment had against the plaintiff in error for $100. From that judgment an appeal was taken to this court. The errors assigned in the record are: First, the court had no jurisdiction of the offense charged; second, insufficiency...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...as "the grand jurors," etc., instead of "the grand jury," seem to have been properly overruled. English v. State, 4 Tex. 125; Williams v. State, 30 Tex. 404; Davis v. State, 6 Tex. App. 133; Coker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 83; Vanvickle v. State, 22 Tex. App. 625, 2 S. W. 642. See Willson's Cri......
-
State v. Foster
...49. Nat. C. Dryden and William L. Morsey, for defendant in error, cited: Wag. Stat. 1090, sec. 27; State v. England, 19 Mo. 386; Williams v. State, 30 Tex. 404; McBean v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 20; Dutell State, 4 Greene (Iowa), 125; Wise v. State, 2 Kan. 419; State v. Holme, 54 Mo. 161; S......
-
Davis v. State
...157; 46 Ind. 463; 42 Id., 393; 21 Id., 79; 18 Id., 428; 19 Id., 98; 23 Id., 150; 6 Id., 440; 1 Kansas, 313; 27 Cal. 65; 13 Fla. 651; 30 Tex. 404, 428; 2 Va. Cas., 527; Humph., 155; 9 Yerg., 198; Waterman U. S. Cr. Dig., 327; Cobb's Penal Code, 213; 1 Starkie Ev., 572-4; 34 Ga. 342; 38 Id., ......
-
Vanvickle v. State
...Code Crim. Proc.,) to show that the indictment was the act of the grand jury of the proper county, (English v. State, 4 Tex. 125; Williams v. State, 30 Tex. 404; Davis v. State, 6 Tex. App. 133; West v. State, Id. 485; Ferguson v. State, Id. 504; Coker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 83; Scales v. St......