Litman v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Litman v. State

9 Tex. Ct. App. 461

DecidedJuly 1, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Tex. Ct. App. 461 (Litman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Litman v. State, 9 Tex. Ct. App. 461 (Tex. Ct. App. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Hurt, J.

The appellant and A. Marwilsky were presented jointly for swindling, severed, and both were convicted ; from which each separately appeals to this court.

We will consider but two questions presented in the record. The first is presented in the case of A. Marwilsky v. The State, decided at this term of the court, and refers to the variance in the proof from the pretences charged in the information. See that case for our opinion on this point.

The second relates to the charge of the court, which is as follows : “ Gentlemen, you are the judges of the credibility [462]*462of the witnesses introduced before you ; you may give any and such weight as you see proper, or discard any portion, in your discretion.”

This was excepted to at the proper time by defendant, and the objection saved by bill. In this we think the court erred. Bishop v. The State, 43 Texas, 390; Rideus v. The State, 41 Texas, 199. Seethe suggestions made in regard to the information, in A. Marwilsky v. The State, ante, p. 377.

For the errors above indicated, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Hurt, J.

The appellant and A. Marwilsky were presented jointly for swindling, severed, and both were convicted ; from which each separately appeals to this court.

We will consider but two questions presented in the record. The first is presented in the case of A. Marwilsky v. The State, decided at this term of the court, and refers to the variance in the proof from the pretences charged in the information. See that case for our opinion on this point.

The second relates to the charge of the court, which is as follows : “ Gentlemen, you are the judges of the credibility [462]*462of the witnesses introduced before you ; you may give any and such weight as you see proper, or discard any portion, in your discretion.”

This was excepted to at the proper time by defendant, and the objection saved by bill. In this we think the court erred. Bishop v. The State, 43 Texas, 390; Rideus v. The State, 41 Texas, 199. Seethe suggestions made in regard to the information, in A. Marwilsky v. The State, ante, p. 377.

For the errors above indicated, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Tex. Ct. App. 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/litman-v-state-texapp-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack