Butts v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Butts v. State

33 S.W. 866, 35 Tex. Crim. 364, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 15, 1896

DocketNo. 865.

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 33 S.W. 866 (Butts 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

Butts v. State, 33 S.W. 866, 35 Tex. Crim. 364, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6 (Tex. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction for forgery. Appellant sought a continuance for the testimony of one Walker, by whom he expected to prove that Eckleberger, the payee of the alleged forged note, had told appellant and Walker that Sidney Woods, whose name was alleged to have been forged, had told Eckleberger that his (Woods’) name on the note “was all right, and that the signature was genuine,” The application was denied, and exceptions duly reserved. On the trial, Eckleberger denied this statement, and he and *365 Woods testified that Woods denied the execution of the note, or any knowledge of it; and Woods defeated Eokleberger in suit on the note, by proving it to be a forgery. Continuances will rarely be granted to obtain impeaching evidence. We see no reason in- this case why there should be a departure from this rule. Newly discovered evidence was alleged as a ground for a new trial. This was impeaching testimony, also, and does not afford a ground for a new trial. Willson’s Grim. Stat., § 2544. Woods, and several members of his family, stated, on the stand, after denying Woods’ signature to the note, that he signed an endorsement of the appellant’s character on what purported to be a mortgage. This was denied by appellant. On the motion for a new trial he alleged, as 'newly discovered evidence, the discovery of the mortgage, without such endorsement, in the hands of Eokleberger. This mortgage is not in the record. Appellant handed the mortgage to Eokleberger long prior to the trial, and subsequently to the time Woods should have written the aforesaid endorsement upon it. lie knew, therefore, prior to the trial, whether this endorsement was written on the mortgage, and could have had it before the jury, if he had so desired, as Eokleberger had possession of it, lived in the town where the trial occurred, and testified for the State. That endorsement was an issue on the trial. No effort was made to obtain it until after his conviction. This was not newly discovered testimony. Finding no error in the record, this judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction for forgery. Appellant sought a continuance for the testimony of one Walker, by whom he expected to prove that Eckleberger, the payee of the alleged forged note, had told appellant and Walker that Sidney Woods, whose name was alleged to have been forged, had told Eckleberger that his (Woods’) name on the note “was all right, and that the signature was genuine,” The application was denied, and exceptions duly reserved. On the trial, Eckleberger denied this statement, and he and *365 Woods testified that Woods denied the execution of the note, or any knowledge of it; and Woods defeated Eokleberger in suit on the note, by proving it to be a forgery. Continuances will rarely be granted to obtain impeaching evidence. We see no reason in- this case why there should be a departure from this rule. Newly discovered evidence was alleged as a ground for a new trial. This was impeaching testimony, also, and does not afford a ground for a new trial. Willson’s Grim. Stat., § 2544. Woods, and several members of his family, stated, on the stand, after denying Woods’ signature to the note, that he signed an endorsement of the appellant’s character on what purported to be a mortgage. This was denied by appellant. On the motion for a new trial he alleged, as 'newly discovered evidence, the discovery of the mortgage, without such endorsement, in the hands of Eokleberger. This mortgage is not in the record. Appellant handed the mortgage to Eokleberger long prior to the trial, and subsequently to the time Woods should have written the aforesaid endorsement upon it. lie knew, therefore, prior to the trial, whether this endorsement was written on the mortgage, and could have had it before the jury, if he had so desired, as Eokleberger had possession of it, lived in the town where the trial occurred, and testified for the State. That endorsement was an issue on the trial. No effort was made to obtain it until after his conviction. This was not newly discovered testimony. Finding no error in the record, this judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 S.W. 866, 35 Tex. Crim. 364, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butts-v-state-texcrimapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack