Hamilton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hamilton v. State

189 S.W.2d 482, 189 S.W. 482, 80 Tex. Crim. 293, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 331

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 8, 1916

DocketNo. 4280.

StatusPublished

This text of 189 S.W.2d 482 (Hamilton 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

Hamilton v. State, 189 S.W.2d 482, 189 S.W. 482, 80 Tex. Crim. 293, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 331 (Tex. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted'of violating the local option law, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and twenty «days imprisonment in the county jail.

Court adjourned on the 22nd of July; the statement of facts was filed on August 14th. This was more than twenty days after the adjournment of court, which, makes it too late for' consideration. There were exceptions taken to the court’s charge as well as exceptions to other rulings of the court in admitting testimony. In the absence of the evidence this court is unable intelligently to revise the charge of the court. The charge may have been in accord with the facts and properly submitted the questions. There seems to have been no special charges asked, and this is a misdemeanor.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted'of violating the local option law, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and twenty «days imprisonment in the county jail.

Court adjourned on the 22nd of July; the statement of facts was filed on August 14th. This was more than twenty days after the adjournment of court, which, makes it too late for' consideration. There were exceptions taken to the court’s charge as well as exceptions to other rulings of the court in admitting testimony. In the absence of the evidence this court is unable intelligently to revise the charge of the court. The charge may have been in accord with the facts and properly submitted the questions. There seems to have been no special charges asked, and this is a misdemeanor.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.W.2d 482, 189 S.W. 482, 80 Tex. Crim. 293, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-state-texcrimapp-1916.