Republic of Texas v. Bynum

1 Dallam 376
Texas Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1840·No. No. XVIII·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

JONES, Justice.

The prisoner, William D. B3'num, having been brought before the court by writ of habeas corpus,.and having examined the cause of his commitment and detention, I am satisfied that the offense with which the prisoner stands charged is not known to the common law nor to the statutes of this Republic. The words, “or other articles of value,” are too indefinite and do not import any offense. Under the rule of construction applied to penal statutes, they must be considered nugatory. They are always construed in the mildest sense for the accused. I am therefore of opinion that the prisoner, should be discharged.

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

Republic of Texas v. Bynum, 1 Dallam 376 (Tex. 1840).

1 Dallam 376 (Republic of Texas v. Bynum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Medrano
67 S.W.3d 892 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Billingslea v. State
780 S.W.2d 271 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Ex Parte McKay
199 S.W. 637 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)