Case Name: WYSONG v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-05-17
Citations: 146 S.W. 941
Docket Number: 
Parties: WYSONG v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 146
Pages: 941–944

Head Matter:
WYSONG v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 17, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, April 3, 1912. Rehearing Denied May 8, 1912.)
On Rehearing.
1. Criminad Law (§ 1166*) — Review — Refusal os Continuance.
Accused cannot complain of refusal of a continuance asked for absent testimony to combat proof which it was assumed the state would make, where such proof was not offered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3100-3102, 3107-3113; Dec. Dig. § 1166. ]
2. Homicide (§ 169 ) —Evidence—Admissibility.
In a trial for homicide, the state was properly permitted to show that, before the killing, accused procured a pistol from a third person, who first refused to give it to him, stating in accused’s presence that she would not let him have it because he was “mad.”
[Ed. Note. — For other.cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 341-350; Dec. Dig. § 169. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1186 ) — Haemless Error — Instructions.
' It was not prejudicial error to omit to instruct that, if the jury had reasonable doubt whether accused was guilty of manslaughter, they must acquit him, where the court directed acquittal if the jury had reasonable doubt as to accused’s, guilt.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3215-3219; Dec. Dig. § 1186. ]
4. Indictment and Information (§ 189 )— Offense Charged — Evidence—Homicide.
Under Code Or. Proc. 1895, art. 817, which provides that a verdict is not against the evidence if accused is found guilty of an offense of inferior grade to, but of the same nature as, the offense ‘proved, a conviction of manslaughter should be sustained, though the evidence does not establish that offense, if the evidence does show murder.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 582-595; Dec. Dig. % 189. ]
5. Homicide (§ 250 )— Evidence — Sufficiency.
Evidence held to sustain a conviction of manslaughter.
[Ed. Note.-*For other eases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 515-517; Dec. Dig. § 250. ]
Davidson, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from District Court, Austin. County; John T. Duncan, Special Judge.
Henry Wysong was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Johnson, Matthaei & Thompson, of Bell-ville, for appellant. C. E. Lane, 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
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter; his punishment being assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
1. Two questions are suggested for revision: First, the refusal of the continuance on account of the absence of the witness Summage. If it was deemed necessary to discuss this question, we are of opinion that the appellant was entitled to have the absent evidence before the jury, but the view we take of the case it is not necessary to go into a discussion of that question.
2. The second question presented is the want of sufficient evidence to justify the conviction. As we understand the evidence, it is shown that on the night of the homicide a lot of negroes had congregated near a store. A number of them were engaged in a game of "monte." Tobe Wilson was the dealer. There arose some trouble between Kit Tate and one of the other negroes, during which Tate exhibited a pistol, Mr. Lati-mer came upon the scene, and interfered, with a view of suppressing' the trouble, and making the negroes behave themselves. He-took from Tate a pistol. Immediately-upon his securing the pistol, the deceased, Evans,, grabbed it out of his hand. Latimer demanded it. Evans told him that he would give up his pistol, if Henry (appellant) would, give up his. This is one phase of the testimony. Another goes to show that he stated he would not give it up; that he would die and go to hell first. Mr. Latimer ordered appellant to go home, that he immediately started in that direction, and went into the store. Latimer took the deceased by the arm, and carried him to the door of the' store, and pushed him in. 'He was not aware at the time that he put deceased in the store that appellant was also in there. Appellant and deceased both ordered beer. There was-some question as to' which one ordered it first, but, after deceased ordered his beer, he-turned to appellant, and said: "You pulled a gun on that boy out there, and you know that, if you do that, you had just as well pull it on me." Appellant remarked, "You are a liar," or "damn liar." Deceased then-remarked to appellant: "Yot got your gun and I have got mine, so let's go." Deceased then reached his hand for his pistol, and. exhibited it as if to shoot, and appellant fired twice. This is practically the substance-of the immediate facts surrounding the homicide. Under this condition of the record, we are of opinion that the conviction was wrong,, and not supported by the evidence.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is-remanded.