Hughes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hughes v. State

163 S.W. 71, 72 Tex. Crim. 493, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 21, 1914

DocketNo. 2951.

StatusPublished

This text of 163 S.W. 71 (Hughes 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

Hughes v. State, 163 S.W. 71, 72 Tex. Crim. 493, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33 (Tex. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of keeping a disorderly house.

There are no bills of exception with this record, nor does it contain a statement of' facts. The first and second grounds of the motion for new trial are based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. The third ground is based on the alleged refusal of the court to give requested instruction No. 1, to the effect, if they had a reasonable doubt as to whether Bob Martin was the tenant and lessee of the property in question during the time alleged, to acquit defendant. In the absence of the statement of facts we are unable to say whether this was applicable to the case or not.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of keeping a disorderly house.

There are no bills of exception with this record, nor does it contain a statement of' facts. The first and second grounds of the motion for new trial are based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. The third ground is based on the alleged refusal of the court to give requested instruction No. 1, to the effect, if they had a reasonable doubt as to whether Bob Martin was the tenant and lessee of the property in question during the time alleged, to acquit defendant. In the absence of the statement of facts we are unable to say whether this was applicable to the case or not.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.W. 71, 72 Tex. Crim. 493, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-state-texcrimapp-1914.