Beaumont v. the City of Dallas

29 S.W. 157, 34 Tex. Crim. 68, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 5
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided January 16, 1895·No. No. 630.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

*69 DAVIDSON, Judge.

This conviction was for keeping a disorderly-house. The name of the appellant is charged as “Mrs. Beaumont.” The statute requires the name of the accused to be stated in the complaint, if known, and if not known, “ some reasonably definite description ” of such accused must be given. In this case this was not done. Code Grim. Proc., art. 236; Bell v. The State, 25 Texas, 574; Pancho v. The State, 25 Texas Grim. App., 402.

It is strange that witnesses can be found who are cognizant of the crime, and yet unable to give “some reasonably definite” description of the perpetrator of that crime.

Be this as it may, it must be done, because the statute requires it to be done.

Judgment is reversed, and the prosecution dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

Beaumont v. the City of Dallas, 29 S.W. 157, 34 Tex. Crim. 68, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 5 (Tex. 1895).

29 S.W. 157 (Beaumont v. the City of Dallas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. State
504 S.W.2d 442 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Kelly v. State
195 S.W. 853 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Mistrot v. State
162 S.W. 833 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)