Ballew v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ballew v. State

85 S.W. 1063, 48 Tex. Crim. 46, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 88

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 8, 1905

DocketNo. 3048.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 S.W. 1063 (Ballew v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballew v. State, 85 S.W. 1063, 48 Tex. Crim. 46, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 88 (Tex. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Upon conviction under information charging slander, appellant was fined $100:' The State’s case was that he stated to witness Chunn, that “Miss Pearle Bowmer was knocked up.” This is explained in the pleading as “thereby meaning she was pregnant.” Appellant’s theory was that he had stated he had heard, or it was reported, Miss Pearle Bowmer was knocked up; and did not state as a matter of fact that she was, but simply repeated the rumor of the neighborhood. The evidence shows that there was a great deal of talk in the neighborhood to that effect: the State contending that the rumor occurred subsequent to appellant’s statement—while his testimony, from quite a number of witnesses, shows that the rumor preceded his statement for some length of time. Evidence in regard to the reputation for chastity of Miss Bowmer was introduced. This rumor was in circulation at Richland, in Navarro County. Some months prior to the trial she „ had moved from that county to Ellis County, and was living at Waxahachie. The court charged the jury, “If on inquiry as to the general reputation of the female, the evidence *47 satisfies you 'beyond a reasonable doubt that her reputation for chastity is bad in the community in which she lives, then you should acquit the defendant. Or if you believe that defendant had established the truth of the alleged statement, then and in the event you will also acquit.” Exception was reserved to this charge for various reasons. This charge was error. This very question was so decided in Manning’s case, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 180. This charge is further criticised because it limited the investigation of reputation in this regard to the community where she then lived, which, under the facts was in Ellis County, in the city of Waxahachie. This charge was too restrictive. He was entitled to a charge as to her reputation at Bichland, in Navarro County; and the only evidence introduced as to her reputation for chastity was in the Bichland neighborhood, and not at Waxahachie. Appellant’s contention in this regard is fully sustained by Crane v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 464.

It is not necessary to discuss the matters with reference to the alleged newly discovered .testimony, as all these witnesses can be obtained upon another trial.

For the errors discussed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Henderson, Judge, absent

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Upon conviction under information charging slander, appellant was fined $100:' The State’s case was that he stated to witness Chunn, that “Miss Pearle Bowmer was knocked up.” This is explained in the pleading as “thereby meaning she was pregnant.” Appellant’s theory was that he had stated he had heard, or it was reported, Miss Pearle Bowmer was knocked up; and did not state as a matter of fact that she was, but simply repeated the rumor of the neighborhood. The evidence shows that there was a great deal of talk in the neighborhood to that effect: the State contending that the rumor occurred subsequent to appellant’s statement—while his testimony, from quite a number of witnesses, shows that the rumor preceded his statement for some length of time. Evidence in regard to the reputation for chastity of Miss Bowmer was introduced. This rumor was in circulation at Richland, in Navarro County. Some months prior to the trial she „ had moved from that county to Ellis County, and was living at Waxahachie. The court charged the jury, “If on inquiry as to the general reputation of the female, the evidence *47 satisfies you 'beyond a reasonable doubt that her reputation for chastity is bad in the community in which she lives, then you should acquit the defendant. Or if you believe that defendant had established the truth of the alleged statement, then and in the event you will also acquit.” Exception was reserved to this charge for various reasons. This charge was error. This very question was so decided in Manning’s case, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 180. This charge is further criticised because it limited the investigation of reputation in this regard to the community where she then lived, which, under the facts was in Ellis County, in the city of Waxahachie. This charge was too restrictive. He was entitled to a charge as to her reputation at Bichland, in Navarro County; and the only evidence introduced as to her reputation for chastity was in the Bichland neighborhood, and not at Waxahachie. Appellant’s contention in this regard is fully sustained by Crane v. State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 464.

It is not necessary to discuss the matters with reference to the alleged newly discovered .testimony, as all these witnesses can be obtained upon another trial.

For the errors discussed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Henderson, Judge, absent

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.W. 1063, 48 Tex. Crim. 46, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballew-v-state-texcrimapp-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack