Tollet v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Tollet v. State

160 S.W. 454, 71 Tex. Crim. 560, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 518

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 29, 1913

DocketNo. 2681.

StatusPublished

This text of 160 S.W. 454 (Tollet 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

Tollet v. State, 160 S.W. 454, 71 Tex. Crim. 560, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 518 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of stealing some chickens—petty theft, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25 and ten days in jail.

The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and there is no complaint in any way of the charge of the court. The only ground of complaint in the motion for a new trial is, in effect, that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law, and contrary both to the law and the evidence. It would 'serve no useful purpose in this or any other case to state in full or in substance the evidence. ' If that introduced by the State was believed by the jury, which evidently it was, as stated above, it was amply sufficient to authorize the verdict.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of stealing some chickens—petty theft, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25 and ten days in jail.

The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and there is no complaint in any way of the charge of the court. The only ground of complaint in the motion for a new trial is, in effect, that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law, and contrary both to the law and the evidence. It would 'serve no useful purpose in this or any other case to state in full or in substance the evidence. ' If that introduced by the State was believed by the jury, which evidently it was, as stated above, it was amply sufficient to authorize the verdict.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.W. 454, 71 Tex. Crim. 560, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tollet-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.