Case Name: Wilbur Johnson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1899-06-14
Citations: 41 Tex. Crim. 9
Docket Number: No. 1972
Parties: Wilbur Johnson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 9–12

Head Matter:
Wilbur Johnson v. The State.
No. 1972.
Decided June 14, 1899.
Motion for Rehearing Decided December 18, 1899.
1. Continuance—Absence of Reading Counsel.
An application for continuance on account of the absence of leading counsel for defendant, who was sick, is properly overruled where it appears that defendant has other able attorneys to represent him, one of whom had previously been of counsel for him both on his examining and habeas corpus trials.
2. Conduct of Counsel in Conducting a Cross-Examination.
On the cross-examination of a witness, counsel has no right to contradict him about what he had testified to previously, unless -he desires to do so as a sworn witness.
3. Robbery—Charge of Court as to a Gift.
On a trial for robbery, where the defense was that defendant acquired the property, alleged to have been taken, by purchase, a charge of court instructing the jury to acquit if defendant acquired the property by purchase or gift was not prejudicial to defendant, even conceding there was no evidence of a gift.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING. .
4. Escape Pending Appeal.
Where, pending his appeal, the facts shown on the motion to dismiss the appeal on account of appellant’s escape, were that after breaking jail he succeeded in getting some eighty yards away when he was discovered by the jailer, who started in pursuit; the prisoner was out of his sight some three or four minutes during the pursuit, but was captured by the jailer at a point some 400 or 500 yards from the jail. Held, the escape was not so complete as to warrant a dismissal of the appeal under provisions of articles 880, 881, Code of Criminal Procedure. Brooks, Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the District Court of Fannin. Tried blow before Hon. B. D. McClellan.
Appeal from a conviction for robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
This is a companion case to Ford v. State, ante, page 1, and the facts are stated in that case.
John G. Meade and James H. Lyday, for appellant.
RoVt A. John, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HEhTDEESON", Judge.
Appellant was convicted of robbery, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years, and he appeals.
Appellant made a motion to continue the case because J. C. Meade, Esq., whom he claimed was his leading" attorney, was sick and 'could not attend the court. The court explains this bill by showing that appellant had the services of another able attorney, to wit, James H. Lyday, Esq., who had. represented him at the examining trial and the trial for bail on habeas corpus, and who was then present and acting as his counsel, and that he also had the services of another attorney, to wit, T. P. Steger, Esq., employed by him in the case. We fail to see any resultant injury to appellant from the overruling of his motion to' continue or postpone the case.
Appellant by his second bill excepted to the action of the court in sustaining the protest of the district attorney as to the method of defendant cross-examining the prosecuting witness, Jos. Seagall. It occurs to us, there was no error in this action of the district attorney. The conduct of defendant's counsel in this respect was improper. He had no right to contradict the witness about whát he had testified to. previously, unless he desired to do so as a sworn'witness.
The court instructed the jury on behalf of appellant that, if they believed appellant got the property—alleged to have been procured in the robbery from J os. Seagall—by purchase or gift, to acquit him. Appellant objected to this charge of the court on the ground, as he claimed, that there was no evidence that appellant got said property by gift,—that appellant claimed to have purchased the same. If this be true, still we fail to see how the charge of the court in reference to the procurement of the property by gift could have prejudiced appellant. But it occurs to us that there, is some testimony in the record suggesting a gift of some of the alleged property. Some objections are made to other portions of the court's charge, but we have examined the same carefully, and find no error therein. The testimony, in our opinion, supports the verdict of the jury, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.