Thompson v. State

142 S.W. 908, 64 Tex. Crim. 514, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 10, 1912
DocketNo. 1492.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 142 S.W. 908 (Thompson 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
Thompson v. State, 142 S.W. 908, 64 Tex. Crim. 514, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31 (Tex. 1912).

Opinion

HARPER, Judge.

This cause was tried in the County Court of Van Zandt County and resulted in the conviction of appellant, and the imposition of a fine of $10.

The trial court adjourned on the 1st day of July, 1911, and the record shows that the purported statement of facts was not filed by the county clerk until July 27, 1911. This is too late, and the statement of facts can not be considered by this court. The motion of the Assistant Attorney-General to strike same from the record is sustained. Hooper v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 105, 138 S. W. Rep., 396; McGowen v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 85, 138 S. W. Rep., 402.

Appellant has filed his brief in this court, and in assignment Ho. 1 insists that as the indictment charges the appellant with pulling *515 down, and injuring the fence of W. G. Amos, without the consent of W. J. Amos, the indictment is bad because of variance in the name of the alleged owner, and that of the party whose consent was wanting. There is no merit in this contention. See article 444, Code Criminal Procedure; Cotton v. State, 4 Texas, 260; Stockton v. State, 25 Texas, 772; White’s Code of Criminal Procedure, 248; Hunter v. State, 8 Texas Crim. App., 75; Wampler v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 353.

The bills of exception were all filed on July 28, more than twenty days subsequent to the adjournment of court, and this being a misdemeanor case, the bills can not be considered, and the motion of the Assistant Attorney-General to strike them from the record is sustained.

In th absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception, the other assignments in the motion for a new trial present no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ross v. State
25 S.W.2d 332 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Gould v. State
252 S.W. 772 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
De Friend v. State
153 S.W. 881 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 S.W. 908, 64 Tex. Crim. 514, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-texcrimapp-1912.