Sara v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Sara v. State

3 S.W. 339, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 639, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 4

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 8, 1887

DocketNo. 2115

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 S.W. 339 (Sara 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

Sara v. State, 3 S.W. 339, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 639, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 4 (Tex. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Hurt, Judge.

Among other grounds it is assigned as error that the trial judge neither signed the statement of facts agreed to by counsel for both parties, nor made up such statement and filed it in the record, as required by Article 1378 of the Revised [640]*640Statutes. Under previous holdings of this court (Johnson v. The State, 16 Texas Ct. App., 372, and cases there cited) the judgment must be reversed, the omission of the judge being without fault on the part of the appellant.

Opinion delivered January 8, 1887.

Taking the agreed statement of facts made up by counsel as a fair summary of the evidence adduced on the trial, this court feels constrained to say that the allegations of the indictment are not met by the proof. The appellant is charged with keeping a disorderly house, and the reputation of the place is relied on to sustain the charge. Common reputation is a legitimate source from which to draw proof to fix the character of the house, but the evidence must directly connect the person charged with the offense committed. The testimony in this case goes to show that the reputation of the house was established by another proprietor, and at an anterior time.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, because of the errors indicated.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Hurt, Judge.

Among other grounds it is assigned as error that the trial judge neither signed the statement of facts agreed to by counsel for both parties, nor made up such statement and filed it in the record, as required by Article 1378 of the Revised [640]*640Statutes. Under previous holdings of this court (Johnson v. The State, 16 Texas Ct. App., 372, and cases there cited) the judgment must be reversed, the omission of the judge being without fault on the part of the appellant.

Opinion delivered January 8, 1887.

Taking the agreed statement of facts made up by counsel as a fair summary of the evidence adduced on the trial, this court feels constrained to say that the allegations of the indictment are not met by the proof. The appellant is charged with keeping a disorderly house, and the reputation of the place is relied on to sustain the charge. Common reputation is a legitimate source from which to draw proof to fix the character of the house, but the evidence must directly connect the person charged with the offense committed. The testimony in this case goes to show that the reputation of the house was established by another proprietor, and at an anterior time.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, because of the errors indicated.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.W. 339, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 639, 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sara-v-state-texapp-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack