Morgan v. State

23 S.W. 1107, 32 Tex. Crim. 413, 1893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 299
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 8, 1893
DocketNo. 776.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 S.W. 1107 (Morgan 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
Morgan v. State, 23 S.W. 1107, 32 Tex. Crim. 413, 1893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 299 (Tex. 1893).

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The recognizance recites that defendant stands charged * * * with the offense of disturbance of religious worship.” The offense sought to be recited not being one eo nomine, it is necessary that its essential elements be set out in the recognizance; otherwise the obligation is fatally defective. Without a sufficient recognizance the jurisdiction of this court can not attach to the appeal. Acts 1892, p. 38, secs. 32, 33; Mullinix v. The State, ante, p. 116, and authorities cited.

In order to constitute the offense sought to be recited, the congregation must be assembled for religious or other mentioned purpose, must be con *414 ducting themselves in a lawful manner, and the disturbance must be willfully created.

The motion of the Assistant Attorney-General is well taken, and must, prevail. It is therefore granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

Related

Kizzia v. State
43 S.W. 86 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 S.W. 1107, 32 Tex. Crim. 413, 1893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-state-texcrimapp-1893.