Case ID: sw_135/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J. HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TREADAWAY v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 30, 1910.
    On Motion for Rehearing, March 15, 1911.)
    1. Indictment and Infokmation (§§ 49, 50) ' —Fobm—Intboduction—Conclusion.
    Where an. information did not begin, “In the name and by the authority of the state of Texas,” and did not conclude, “against the peace and dignity of the. state,” it was fatally defective.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 158-160; Dec. Dig. §§ 49, 50.]
    
      On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Indictment and Information (§ 161)— Defective Information — Aider. ■
    A valid information and complaint filed by B., alleging an offense committed on February 2, 1908, could not aid a defective information and complaint filed by S., alleging an offense committed on February 7, 1908, though both were against the same person.
    TEd. Note. — For other' cases, see Indictment and Information, Dec. Dig. § 161.]
    3. Assault and Battery (§ 83) — Issues and ' Proof.
    On trial of accused for whipping his wife, the court erred in requiring him to answer how many times he had been married, and how many living wives he had, etc.; his conduct toward such other women not being in issue.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Assault and Battery, Dec. Dig. § 83.]
    Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; C. D. Mims, Judge.
    Tom Treadaway was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Ingraham, Middlebrook & Hodges, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted o'f an aggravated assault, and prosecutes an appeal.

The information as copied in the transcript does not begin, “In the name and by the authority of the state of Texas,” nor does it conclude, “against the peace and dignity of the state,” as is required by the Constitution and statutes of this state.

This judgment will be reversed, and the ¿cause remanded.

McCORD, J., not sitting.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HARPER, J.

At the last term of this court this cause was reversed and remanded because the information did not begin, “In in the name and by the authority of the state of Texas,” and did not conclude, “against the peace and dignity of the state.” The Assistant Attorney General filed a motion for a rehearing in this cause, and to the motion is attached a complaint and information in proper form; but the complaint is signed “Eli Box,” and is sworn to by him on the 27th day .of February, 1908, and the information, following the complaint, alleges- that it is filed upon the affidavit of Eli Box. By reference to the transcript in this cause, we find that the information and complaint held defective is not the same as those attached to the application for a rehearing. In the transcript the complaint is signed by G. W. Stone, and is sworn to on- the 29th day of February, 1908, by him, and alleges the offense as of date the 7th day of February, 1908. The information follows the complaint, and says, “Upon the affidavit of G. W. Stone.” To show there is a valid information and complaint in the case filed by Eli Box, alleging an offense on the 2d day of February, 1908, would not and could not aid a defective information and complaint filed by G. W. Stone, alleging an offense on the 7th day of February, 1908, even though both were against the same person. The charge of the court and the entire record shows it was on the information based on complaint filed by G. W. Stone that this case was tried; and, as it is wanting in the essentials named in the original opinion, the motion for a rehearing is overruled.

But, as this case will be tried again, we would suggest that the questions asked of defendant, and which he was required to answer, about how many times he had been married, how many living wives he had, etc., were improper, and the court should have sustained the objections made. Defendant was on trial for an alleged whipping of his then wife, and his conduct toward former wives was not an issue in the case.

There are several other matters complained of in the record, because of some of which this case would necessarily be reversed and remanded; but, as they will not likely occur on another trial, we will not discuss them.

Motion for - rehearing overruled.