Cain v. State

18 Tex. 391
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1857
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 Tex. 391 (Cain v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cain v. State, 18 Tex. 391 (Tex. 1857).

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

The rule of law applicable to indictments, is, that if the fact be stated as to time or place with repugnancy or uncertainty, the indictment will be bad. (Whart. Am. Cr. L. 113, 142.) In this indictment there is manifest repugnancy in the statement as to the place or county where the offence was committed. This was a good ground in arrest of judgment. There was error, therefore, in refusing to sustain the motion on the ground of repugnancy and uncertainty in stating the venue.

There is also the same error in rejecting the evidence offered by the prisoner, as in the case just decided between the same parties ; for which the judgment in this case must be reversed, and the case be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Wheeler
38 N.E. 1115 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Connor v. State
29 Fla. 455 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Tex. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cain-v-state-tex-1857.