Gray and Ross v. State

25 S.W. 627, 32 Tex. Crim. 598, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 238
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 3, 1894·No. No. 405.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Conviction for swindling Jack Rowland, thereby obtaining from him a horse.

We have carefully examined the indictment in this record, in connection with the objections made thereto. It is sufficient. That Rowland was induced to bet his horse on his ability to open the knife does not prevent the transaction from being a swindle within the provisions of our statute.

The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict. Those who by such tricks as are shown in the record obtain the property of others justly deserve to be in the penitentiary. There was no objection made to the charge of the court when it was submitted to the jury. If not strictly correct in every particular, its imperfections are not calculated to injure appellant.

Judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

Gray and Ross v. State, 25 S.W. 627, 32 Tex. Crim. 598, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 238 (Tex. 1894).

25 S.W. 627 (Gray and Ross v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Deuschle v. State
4 S.W.2d 559 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Mendez v. State
250 S.W. 680 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Guthrie v. State
166 S.W. 730 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Johnson v. State
32 S.W. 537 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1895)