Case Name: Sylvester Johnson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-01
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 81
Docket Number: No. 6645
Parties: Sylvester Johnson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 81–84

Head Matter:
Sylvester Johnson v. The State.
No. 6645.
Decided November 1, 1922.
Rehearing granted December 13, 1922.
1. —Adultery—Leading Questions — Bill of Exceptions.
In the absence of a showing what answer if any was made by the witness, the bill of exceptions is insufficient and cannot be reviewed on appeal.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of adultery, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error. Following Counts v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 329, and other cases.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Recall of Execution — Practice on Appeal.
The, clerk of this court is entitled to issue execution in case of an affirmance of a misdemeanor case on appeal to this court, against appellant and his sureties, but, where it appeared by the uncontradicted affidavits of the sureties in appellant’s motion for rehearing, etc., that after recognizance for appeal was entered into, the sureties on such recognizance brought appellant personally to the sheriff and surrendered him, and the appellant was, in legal contemplation, in the custody of the proper officers, at the time of the determination of his appeal, the execution issued by the clerk of this court must be recalled; and this although the sheriff had discharged the appellant from custody under a misunderstanding of the law.
4. —Same—Legislation Suggested — Appeal—Notice.
The attention of the Legislature is called to the fact, that where an appellant who has made a recognizance is surrendered by his sureties, there is no statutory provision by which the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals may be apprised of such fact, and a proper amendment is suggested.
Appeal from the County Court of Guadalupe. Tried below before the Honorable J. B. Williams.
Appeal from a conviction of adultery; penalty, a fine of $150.
The opinion states the case.
P. E. Campbell, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, and R. A.Weinert, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of adultery, and a fine of $150 assessed against him.
The only bill of exception in the record complains that the State was permitted to ask a certain witness leading questions which are set out in the bill, but there is a total failure to show what answers, if any, were made by the witness. No error is presented. (See cases collated under Sec. 10, page 134, Branch's Ann. Penal Code.)
The sufficiency of the evidence to suport the conviction is questioned. Houston Wilson testified substantially that some time in April, 1921 he rented to appellant some land; that he was living in .a house at Seguin at this time with two women, one of whom appellant introduced as his daughter, and the other, Nancy Lopez, he represented to be and introduced as his wife. The three of them then moved to Wilson's place, and lived there about one_ week, occupying the same house, Wilson called the woman, Nancy, Mrs. Johnson, believing her to be appellant's wife, until he admitted to Wilson that she was not his wife, but that his wife was in Colorado County. During the time appellant was on his place Wilson had occasion to go early one morning to the house occupied by appellant, and saw him and Nancy occupying the same bed. At another time he camped near the house spending the night, and saw the daughter in one of the rooms by herself, but did not at that time see the.other woman in the room with her. Appellant (Nancy), and the daughter, as well as one other witness, denied all the criminative facts testified to by Wilson. They asserted that Nancy was appellant's housekeeper only, and that she and the daughter occupied one room, while appellant slept in the other. This raised an issue of fact which the jury alone was authorized to settle. If they believed Wilson's testimony (which evidently they did) it was sufficient to authorize the conviction. Stewart v. State, 43 S. W. Rep., 979; Counts v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 329, 94 S. W. Rep., 220.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.