Mills v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Mills v. State

35 S.W. 370, 36 Tex. Crim. 71, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 29, 1896

DocketNo. 959.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 35 S.W. 370 (Mills 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

Mills v. State, 35 S.W. 370, 36 Tex. Crim. 71, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 113 (Tex. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This appeal is brought from a final judgment had upon a forfeited bail bond. The scire facias alleges the execution of said bond to have occurred on the 23rd day of January, 1895. The face of the bond recites as follows: “Signed and dated on this the —— day of January, A. D. 1895,” and was 1 ‘approved on this the 23rd day of January, A. D. 1895.” Henry C. Purl, Sheriff Williamson County, by C. II. Gee, Depty.” It was made a ground of exception that there is a variance between the date in the bond and that alleged'in the scire facias. We do not think so. The bond recites no ¡larticular day. The approval does. Had the bond fixed a day of execution different from the date of apjiroval, and had the scire facias followed the date of approval instead of that set out in the bond, there would have been a variance. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, the bond will be presumed to have been executed on the date of its approval by the officer taking it. See, Ake v. State, 4 Tex. Crim. App., 126; La Rose v. State, 29 Tex. Crim. App., 215; Williamson v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep., 213. This is not in conflict with the Bailey case (Tex. Crim. App.) 22 S. W. Rep., 40. The recognizance in this latter Mentioned case was not dated, whereas the scire facias alleges that it was entered into on April 26th. In the case in hand the date, as above stated, was fixed *73 by the approval of the bond, and the scire facias alleges that date. It is contended also that the bond sets out no offense against the Penal Code. It recites that “Jno. D. Mills stands charged by complaint duly made with the offense of having and carrying on and about his person ■‘brass knucks.’ ” The contention is that “lcnucks” and “knuckles” are ■not the same thing, and that, in order to have been an offense, the word “knuckles” should have been used in the bond. The two words mean the same thing, as shown by their definitions. See, Cent: Diet. It is not fatal to complaints, informations, or indictments, that words of the same import as those set out in the statute are used in charging statutory offenses. This is settled in this State. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This appeal is brought from a final judgment had upon a forfeited bail bond. The scire facias alleges the execution of said bond to have occurred on the 23rd day of January, 1895. The face of the bond recites as follows: “Signed and dated on this the —— day of January, A. D. 1895,” and was 1 ‘approved on this the 23rd day of January, A. D. 1895.” Henry C. Purl, Sheriff Williamson County, by C. II. Gee, Depty.” It was made a ground of exception that there is a variance between the date in the bond and that alleged'in the scire facias. We do not think so. The bond recites no ¡larticular day. The approval does. Had the bond fixed a day of execution different from the date of apjiroval, and had the scire facias followed the date of approval instead of that set out in the bond, there would have been a variance. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, the bond will be presumed to have been executed on the date of its approval by the officer taking it. See, Ake v. State, 4 Tex. Crim. App., 126; La Rose v. State, 29 Tex. Crim. App., 215; Williamson v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep., 213. This is not in conflict with the Bailey case (Tex. Crim. App.) 22 S. W. Rep., 40. The recognizance in this latter Mentioned case was not dated, whereas the scire facias alleges that it was entered into on April 26th. In the case in hand the date, as above stated, was fixed *73 by the approval of the bond, and the scire facias alleges that date. It is contended also that the bond sets out no offense against the Penal Code. It recites that “Jno. D. Mills stands charged by complaint duly made with the offense of having and carrying on and about his person ■‘brass knucks.’ ” The contention is that “lcnucks” and “knuckles” are ■not the same thing, and that, in order to have been an offense, the word “knuckles” should have been used in the bond. The two words mean the same thing, as shown by their definitions. See, Cent: Diet. It is not fatal to complaints, informations, or indictments, that words of the same import as those set out in the statute are used in charging statutory offenses. This is settled in this State. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.W. 370, 36 Tex. Crim. 71, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-state-texcrimapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack