Crowson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Crowson v. State

118 S.W. 1036, 56 Tex. Crim. 51, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 162

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 23, 1909

DocketNo. 4560.

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.W. 1036 (Crowson 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

Crowson v. State, 118 S.W. 1036, 56 Tex. Crim. 51, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 162 (Tex. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant filed an application for a continuance which was overruled. This ruling of the court can not be reviewed because appellant failed to reserve an , exception. There is no bill of exception in the record as to this or any other matter occurring during the trial.

He urges in his motion for new trial that the court erred in 'permitting the wife of defendant to be contradicted or impeached by showing that she made contradictory statements out of court to those which she testified on the trial. There were no exceptions reserved to these rulings of the court, and as we find the statement of facts we are. of opinion that the court did not go beyond the law in ruling as he did, but in any event these rulings can not be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exception.

It is also urged that the testimony is not sufficient. We are of opinion that it is ample. It may be well enough to state that the conviction was for burglary of a railroad car with intent to commit the crime of theft. The property taken from the car was quite a number of hams branded “red gravy hams.'’ The facts show that appellant had quite a number of these hams in possession, which were taken from the car. There are other facts going to connect him with this transaction. It is also shown that after being arrested and giving bond, he fled the country and was arrested after some length of time in California. The details of the testimony cover several pages of the record and present a sufficient case to justify the verdict of the jury.

The judgment is ordered to be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant filed an application for a continuance which was overruled. This ruling of the court can not be reviewed because appellant failed to reserve an , exception. There is no bill of exception in the record as to this or any other matter occurring during the trial.

He urges in his motion for new trial that the court erred in 'permitting the wife of defendant to be contradicted or impeached by showing that she made contradictory statements out of court to those which she testified on the trial. There were no exceptions reserved to these rulings of the court, and as we find the statement of facts we are. of opinion that the court did not go beyond the law in ruling as he did, but in any event these rulings can not be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exception.

It is also urged that the testimony is not sufficient. We are of opinion that it is ample. It may be well enough to state that the conviction was for burglary of a railroad car with intent to commit the crime of theft. The property taken from the car was quite a number of hams branded “red gravy hams.'’ The facts show that appellant had quite a number of these hams in possession, which were taken from the car. There are other facts going to connect him with this transaction. It is also shown that after being arrested and giving bond, he fled the country and was arrested after some length of time in California. The details of the testimony cover several pages of the record and present a sufficient case to justify the verdict of the jury.

The judgment is ordered to be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.W. 1036, 56 Tex. Crim. 51, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowson-v-state-texcrimapp-1909.