Case Name: BODKINS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-10-28
Citations: 172 S.W. 216
Docket Number: No. 3254
Parties: BODKINS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 172
Pages: 216–219

Head Matter:
BODKINS v. STATE.
(No. 3254.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 28, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, Dec. 2, 1914.
Further Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1915.)
1. Bail (§ 64 ) — Defective Recognizance.
Where a criminal appeal recognizance does not conclude with the words “in this case,” as required by statute, the appeal will be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 278; Dec. Dig. § 64. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Adultery (§ 13 ) — Admissibility of Evidence-Prior Acts.
Where defendant’s niece by marriage, with whom he was alleged to have committed adultery, testified that the acts of intercourse had been going on for two years prior to a date within the period of limitations, the admission of the evidence was not error as testimony of acts the prosecution for which was barred by the statute, where the court charged that there could be no conviction for acts committed more than two years prior to the finding of the indictment.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Adultery, Cent. Dig. §§ 28-30; Dec. Dig. § 13. ]
3. Adultery (§ 13 ) — Admissibility of Evidence-Birth of Child.
In a prosecution of defendant for adultery with his wife’s niece, who had been living in his home, evidence that the girl had gone from defendant’s home to a home for fallen girls and had there given birth to a baby is admissible, when limited to the issue whether the niece had had intercourse with some man.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Adultery. Cent. Dig. §§ 28-30; Dec. Dig. § 13. ]
4. Witnesses (§ 277 ) — Cross-Examination of Accused — Scope of Direct Examination.
Where one accused of adultery with his wife]s niece admitted that she had been living in his home, but denied having intercourse with her, and introduced testimony reflecting on her good name, he can be asked on cross-examination whether he knew of any reason why she would falsely testify against him.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 925, 979-983; Dec. Dig. § 277. }
5. Criminal Law (§ 720 ) — Trial—Misconduct of Prosecutor — Argument.
Where the evidence showed that defendant had begun to have intercourse with his wife’s-niece when she was only 14 years old, but that the county attorney did not learn of it until more than one year after she became 15, argument by the county attorney that defendant could and would have been prosecuted for rape if his crime had been detected before the statute of _ limitations had run was a comment on the-evidence, and not error, especially where no-special charge in regard thereto was requested.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1670, 1671; Dec. Dig. § 720. ]
6. Criminal Law (§ 841 ) — Appeal — Objections to Charge — Time for Making.
Objections to the court’s charge in a criminal prosecution which were made after the charge had been read to the jury need not be considered.
[Ed. Note — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig.'§ 2022; Dec. Dig. § 841. ]
7. Adultery (§ 15 ) — Instructions—Name of Defendant’s Wife.
Where an indictment for adultery alleged-the name of defendant’s wife, and it was conclusively shown that defendant was married and living with his wife at the time of the acts charged, an instruction that did not require the-jury to find that he was married to the person named in the indictment was not erroneous.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Adultery,. Cent. Dig. §§ 34-36; Dec. Dig. § 15. ]
8. Adultery (§ 7 ) — Indictment — Name of-Defendant’s Wife.
In an indictment for adultery, an allegation of the name of defendant’s wife is sur-plusage.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Adultery,. Cent. Dig. §§ 12-16; Dec. Dig. § 7. ]
9. Lewdness (§ 1 ) — Elements—“Living Together.”
Evidence of adultery between defendant and his wife’s niece, who was living in his home, authorizes a conviction of adultery b.v “living together” contrary to Pen. Code 1879} art. 333; since it is not necessary to constitute that offense that the parties live together as man and wife, but only that they live together and have intercourse.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Lewdness, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-^1; Dec. Dig. § 1. ]
10. Adultery (§ 14 ) — Evidence—Corroboration of Accomplice.
In a prosecution for adultery, evidence that defendant had tried to get the girl’s brother to induce her to withdraw her charge, agreed to-give her money and to marry her, and had stated that he knew he had done wrong and wanted to show he was a man, is sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Adultery, Cent. Dig. §§ 27, 31, 32; Dec. Dig. § 14. ]
Appeal from Tarrant County Court; T. W. Simmons, Special Judge.
'S. T. Bodkins was convicted of adultery, and lie appeals^
Appeal dismissed, but reinstated on motion for rebearing, and judgment affirmed. ,
Poulter & Johnson, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am, Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes-

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance. We find that his motion is well taken. It does not comply with that part of the statute which requires the form of the recognizance to conclude with the words "in this case." Quite a number of cases have been dismissed upon this omission in the recognizance, and, following those cases, the motion will be granted, and the appeal dismissed.