State v. Morris

Texas Supreme Court

State v. Morris

43 Tex. 372

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 43 Tex. 372 (State v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Morris, 43 Tex. 372 (Tex. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Moore, Associate Justice.

On motion of appellee the [373]*373indictment against him was quashed because, as he insists, it “ does not charge an offense in plain and intelligible words, but uses the unintelligible words, ‘neat cattle’ and ‘ the value.’ ”

To enable the court more certainly to perceive and appreciate the force and applicability of the objections, the original indictment was, by order of the court below, directed to be sent up with the transcript for our inspection. An examination which we are thus enabled to make of the indictment fully satisfies us that the objections to it are altogether frivolous and hypercritical. The indictment exhibits a better style of penmanship and is more plainly and distinctly written than at least one-half of the transcripts which come to this court, and is superior in these respects to the handwriting of a majority of the legal profession. There is not the slightest difficulty in seeing at a glance, and without aid from the context, that the words to which the objection refers are, “ neat cattle” and “the value.”

The transcript of the record in this case has not been made by the clerk with that care and attention to the law and the order of the court which he should have observed in the discharge of an official duty of this character. The original indictment should not have been incorporated into and made a part of the transcript, but, in obedience to the order of the court, it should, with a certificate signifying its identity, have been sent up with the transcript. The reversal of the judgment obviously requires the return of the indictment to the District Court, which, owing to the manner in which the transcript has been sent here, can only be done by its mutilation, while unquestionably it should properly remain as a record of this court entire and complete. But as this cannot be consistently with the due execution and enforcement of the law, it is ordered that the clerk shall file with the transcript a certified copy of the [374]*374indictment, and shall then return the original indictment to the District Court.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Moore, Associate Justice.

On motion of appellee the [373]*373indictment against him was quashed because, as he insists, it “ does not charge an offense in plain and intelligible words, but uses the unintelligible words, ‘neat cattle’ and ‘ the value.’ ”

To enable the court more certainly to perceive and appreciate the force and applicability of the objections, the original indictment was, by order of the court below, directed to be sent up with the transcript for our inspection. An examination which we are thus enabled to make of the indictment fully satisfies us that the objections to it are altogether frivolous and hypercritical. The indictment exhibits a better style of penmanship and is more plainly and distinctly written than at least one-half of the transcripts which come to this court, and is superior in these respects to the handwriting of a majority of the legal profession. There is not the slightest difficulty in seeing at a glance, and without aid from the context, that the words to which the objection refers are, “ neat cattle” and “the value.”

The transcript of the record in this case has not been made by the clerk with that care and attention to the law and the order of the court which he should have observed in the discharge of an official duty of this character. The original indictment should not have been incorporated into and made a part of the transcript, but, in obedience to the order of the court, it should, with a certificate signifying its identity, have been sent up with the transcript. The reversal of the judgment obviously requires the return of the indictment to the District Court, which, owing to the manner in which the transcript has been sent here, can only be done by its mutilation, while unquestionably it should properly remain as a record of this court entire and complete. But as this cannot be consistently with the due execution and enforcement of the law, it is ordered that the clerk shall file with the transcript a certified copy of the [374]*374indictment, and shall then return the original indictment to the District Court.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Tex. 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-morris-tex-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack