Case Name: Cal Garlington v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-05-08
Citations: 67 Tex. Crim. 305
Docket Number: No. 1762
Parties: Cal Garlington v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 305–307

Head Matter:
Cal Garlington v. The State.
No. 1762.
Decided May 8, 1912.
Rehearing denied June 26, 1912.
1.—Intimidation—Misdemeanor—Special Charge.
In the absence of a bill of exceptions to the refusal of a special charge, in a misdemeanor case, the same can not be considered on appeal. Following Giles v. State, 66 Texas Grim. Rep., 638.
2.—Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of intimidation, the evidence sustained a conviction, there was no error.
Appeal from the County Court of Sabine. Tried below before the Hon. T. B. Smith.
Appeal from a conviction of intimidation; penalty, a fine of $25.
The information charged that the defendant did unlawfully by act of violence and intimidation, to wit, by words and by threatening gestures with a gun, the same being then and there a deadly weapon, prevent affiant J. P. C. from performing the duties of his affiant’s lawful employment, which then and there was the cultivation of a crop, to wit, plowing corn, which said employment affiant was then and there lawfully engaged in, against, etc.
The evidence sustained the allegation in the information and showed that defendant had been employed by the State’s witness to work a certain corn crop; that when defendant failed to do so and the complainant sent his boys to work said crop, the defendant came there and ran them off with a gun.
Ho brief on file for appellant.
. G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
—By proper complaint and information appellant was charged with preventing another from performing his duty in a lawful employment by acts of violence and intimidation. The charge submits the question properly under the pleadings.
There is no statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. Hence, we can not consider any of the questions attempted to be raised by the motion for new trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.