Case Name: Louis Williams, Pete Cadell, J. W. Johnson, J. H. Rainey, Robert Bentley v. The State
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1885-11-04
Citations: 19 Tex. Ct. App. 265
Docket Number: No. 1907; No. 1908; No. 1909; No. 1910; No. 1912
Parties: Louis Williams Pete Cadell J. W. Johnson J. H. Rainey Robert Bentley v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
No. 1907.
No. 1908.
No. 1909.
No. 1910.
No. 1912.
Louis Williams Pete Cadell J. W. Johnson J. H. Rainey Robert Bentley v. The State.
Practice in the Court of Appeals.— Indictments presented by grand juries composed of more persons than twelve are nullities, as heretofore held in the cases of Lott v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 627, and McNeese v. The State, ante, p. 48; and convictions shown by the record to be based upon sucli pretended indictments will, upon appeal to this court, be set' aside and the prosecutions dismissed.
Appeals from the District Court of Cooke. Tried below before the Hon. F. E. Finer.
The convictions in these cases, with their respective terms of imprisonment in the penitentiary, were, in the order of the case numbers, as follows: Robbery, five years; horse theft, eight years; theft, five years; murder in the second degree, eighteen years, and horse theft, fifteen years.
Briefs of counsel were filed as follows:
Sarlls d Scott, for appellant Louis Williams.
Blanton <& Wright, for appellant Pete Cadell.
IF. F. Bowman and J. M. Wright, for appellant J. W. Johnson.
A. M. Thomason and W. B. Johnson, for appellant J. H. Rainey.
W. L. Blanton, for appellant Robert Bentley.
J. II. Burts, Assistant Attorney-G-eneral, for the State.

Opinion:
Hurt, Judge.
In these cases it affirmatively appears from the record that the parties were each convicted of felonies upon indictments presented by a grand jury composed of more than twelve persons. The cases are from the same court, to wit: the district court of Cooke county. The judgments are reversed and the causes dismissed. (See Lott v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 627; and McNeese v. The State, decided at this term, ante, p. 48.)
Reversed and dismissed.
[Opinion delivered November 4, 1885.]