Craddick v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Craddick v. State

88 S.W. 347, 48 Tex. Crim. 385, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 213

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 14, 1905

DocketNo. 3054.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 S.W. 347 (Craddick 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

Craddick v. State, 88 S.W. 347, 48 Tex. Crim. 385, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 213 (Tex. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Conviction of violating the local option law. The .State over the objections of appellant, was permitted to prove by the witness Steger, that prosecutor drew 50 cents of his wages, went away, and subsequently returned, showing said witness a bottle of whisky. Witness asked prosecutor where he got the whisky, who replied that he got it from appellant. This was objected to, among *387 other reasons, because it was hearsay. Error is conceded by the State, unless appellant was present and heard the conversation. We think the bill is sufficient to show that he was not present.

There are several bills reserved to the manner of interrogating the prosecuting witness by the county attorney. Certainly his manner of asking leading questions was not proper, and upon another trial, the court should require that the witness be examined in a proper and legitimate way. The curt undertakes to explain this by stating that the witness was a Swede, and was not thoroughly familiar with the English language. Without going into a detailed statement of this matter, we think that the witness having lived in America for twenty-six years, as the witness stated, and his manner of testifying shows that he sufficiently understands the English language to answer questions intelligently.

Another question presented should be noticed. The record fails to show that the local option law alleged to have been violated had been put into operation in said county. There is a loose expression or so by the witnesses, that certain things occurred before local option took effect; and some statements in regard to closing saloons, but the fact that an election was held in that county is not shown, nor the result of such election, nor when it went into operation. These local option laws are special laws, and must be put into operation in the territory in the manner specified by the statute; and the court does not judicially know when these laws are put into operation. These are matters of fact to be proved. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Conviction of violating the local option law. The .State over the objections of appellant, was permitted to prove by the witness Steger, that prosecutor drew 50 cents of his wages, went away, and subsequently returned, showing said witness a bottle of whisky. Witness asked prosecutor where he got the whisky, who replied that he got it from appellant. This was objected to, among *387 other reasons, because it was hearsay. Error is conceded by the State, unless appellant was present and heard the conversation. We think the bill is sufficient to show that he was not present.

There are several bills reserved to the manner of interrogating the prosecuting witness by the county attorney. Certainly his manner of asking leading questions was not proper, and upon another trial, the court should require that the witness be examined in a proper and legitimate way. The curt undertakes to explain this by stating that the witness was a Swede, and was not thoroughly familiar with the English language. Without going into a detailed statement of this matter, we think that the witness having lived in America for twenty-six years, as the witness stated, and his manner of testifying shows that he sufficiently understands the English language to answer questions intelligently.

Another question presented should be noticed. The record fails to show that the local option law alleged to have been violated had been put into operation in said county. There is a loose expression or so by the witnesses, that certain things occurred before local option took effect; and some statements in regard to closing saloons, but the fact that an election was held in that county is not shown, nor the result of such election, nor when it went into operation. These local option laws are special laws, and must be put into operation in the territory in the manner specified by the statute; and the court does not judicially know when these laws are put into operation. These are matters of fact to be proved. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.W. 347, 48 Tex. Crim. 385, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craddick-v-state-texcrimapp-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack