Rushing v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Rushing v. State

127 S.W.2d 900, 137 Tex. Crim. 102, 1939 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 318

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rushing v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 139 Tex. Crim. 502 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 22, 1939·No. No. 20283.·Published

Opinions

GRAVES, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of passing a forged instrument, .and was by the jury awarded three years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears to be in proper form, and all proceedings herein seem to be regular, and we have no other alternative than to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly done.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of passing a forged instrument, .and was by the jury awarded three years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears to be in proper form, and all proceedings herein seem to be regular, and we have no other alternative than to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly done.

Rushing v. State, 127 S.W.2d 900, 137 Tex. Crim. 102, 1939 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 318 (Tex. 1939).

Pincite

127 S.W.2d 900 (Rushing v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.