The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1878-04-18
Synopsis of Decisions OF the Court
OF Appeals.
No. 667-E. r. Taylor v. The State of
Texas; appeal from Grayson. opin-
ion by Winkler. J.

No. 667-E. R. Taylor Y. The State of
Texas; appeal from Grayson. Opin-
ion by Winkler, ].
1. Appellant in the trial below hav-
ing pleaded former conviction and not
guilty, announced ready for trial and
waving jury submitted the case to
the court. Held, That it was not nec-
essary that the court acting instead of
jury should find expressly for or
against defendants plea of former con-
viction, the fact that it found him
guilty being sufficient to show find
ing against the truth of such plea.
2. Appellant assigned for error that
the court below allowed evidence to be
introduced which included the time
included in a former trial, and in
which former trial no particular time
was proven except from January to
March 1, inclusive. Held, That the
proposition amounts to simply this:
that person legally convicted of a
given offense at any period within
which prosecution would be barred
could not be legally tired for a similar
offense alleged to have been committed
within the same period, unless the
prosecution were confined to some par
ticular day or period of time, the falla-
cy of which position arises from not re-
membering the distinction between the
latitude allowed the State in proving
the offense and that required of the
defendant in introducing evidence to
show that he has before been tried and
either convicted or acquitted of the
same offense charged against him SUBJ
sequently to such conviction or ac-
quittal-the State being only limited
in proving the commission of an of.
fense by the time in which, by law, the
offense may be prosecuted, whilst the
defendant is held, in order to justify
himself upon the ground of former
acqulttal or conviction, to identify by
pleading and evidence the charge upon
which he is proposed to be tried with
the offense which he claims has been
already adjudicated. Campbell v. The
State, 2 Tex. G.. A. r., 1879
Judgment affirmed.
No. 514-J. A. Reddick v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Grayson.
Opinion by Winkler, ].
The material questions raised by the
record in this case are settled by the
case of Taylor v. The State, decided at
present Austin term. (See also Camp
bell v. the State, 2 Tex. G. A. r., 1S7.)
Judgment affirmed.
No. 665-Aleck Redick v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Graysou.
Opinion by Winkler, ].
Held, That the county attorney had
authority to prosecute upon informa-
ton an offense for which a portion of
the punishment may be by imprison-
ment in the county Jail, (see Gen.
Laws 1876, p. 50, sec. 13 and Seq.,) and
that the county court properly took
Jurisdiction of case so presented upon
information. Gen. Laws 1876, p. IS,
sec. 3.
3. That it is not error in the court
below acting in place of jury to fail
to find expressly whether defendants
plea of former conviction is true or
untrue, the fact that the court firds
the defendant guilty affording suf-
ficient ground for presumption that its
finding was against the truth of the
plea of former conviction. Taylor Y.
The State; decided at present term,
at Austin.)
| Judgment affirmed.
No. 66S-Aleck Reddlck v. The State
Uf Texas; appeal from Grayson.
Opinion by Winkler, j.
The material questions in this case
were the same decided in the case of
Taylor v. The State, decided at the
/ nrpeant Auetin term
Judgment affirmed.
No. 660-E. r. Taylor v. The State OF
Texas; appeal from Grayson. Opin-
ion by Winkler, ].
Appellant Oh his trial below pleaded
not guilty; also, plea of former ac-
quittal and a plea of former conviction
for the same offense. The jury found
appellant guilty and assessed against
him fine of twenty-five dollars, but
failed to find whether his plea IN bar
was true or untrue. Held, That the
requirement of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Art. G26, P. D., Art. 3091)
seem to be imperative, that when
there are special pleas upon which the
jury are to find they must say in Their
verdict that the matter alleged in such
pleas are either true or untrue. Oray.
ton V. The State, a Tex. 446).
Reversed and remanded.
No. 69S-John Hines v. The State oi
Texas; appeal from Grayson. Opin-
ion by Winkler, j.
Appellant was indicted for keeping,
dealing and exhibiting bank for the
purpose of gaming and was convicted.
Held, That the indictment was good
under article 2051, Paschaps Digest,
| Campbell v. The State, 2 Texas G. A,
R., 1879
Judgment affirmed.
No. 756-James N. Bland v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Lamar. Opin
ion by Winkler, J.
1. Appellant assigns as error thai
that portion of the charge of the court
below relating to the subject of reason
able doubt, and which is as follows
''Should you have reasonable doubt
as to the guilt of the defendant, de.
duced from the testimony, he is enti
tied to the benefit of that doubt and
should acquit him." was entirely in
correct. Held. That charge couched il
the language of the statute P. D., 3105
Grim. Proceed, 64O) is all that the Law
requires (BIurray v. The State, Texal
G. A. R., Az; Black v. The State,
Texas c. A. R., 36s; Hampton v. Tht
State, Texas G. A. R., 652), but tina
a substanusl compliance with thu
statute is sufficient, and that the Inser
ton in the charge of the words ''de
| ducad from the teetimOnvD ~ after thl
words reasonable doubt" is not error
2. The appellant assigns as error th,
verbiage of the verdict of the jury anC
its form, the verdict being as follows
"Wc, the jury, find the defendan
guilty as charged and assess the fin
against defendant one hundred dollars.
Held, That it is sufficient that yer
dict in a criminal case be such that
judgment rendered upon it can b
pleaded in bar of another indictmen
for the same offense and that mere yer
bal defeats do not invalidate it. Tha
verdicts are to have q reasonable in
tendment and tc receive a reasonabl,
construction and are not to be avoide'
unless from necessity originating il
doubt of their import or immateriaiit,
of the issue found or of their manifes
tendency to work injustice, Il Water
man on New Trials, 159, cited IN
Texas c. A. r., 1888; Lindsay v. Th
State; Chambers v. The People, 4.
Scam, 357; Murray V. The State anC
cases cited, Texas c. A. R., 327.)
Judgment affirmed.
| ~ zoo W., UaIla ~ The State n