Williams v. State

Texas Supreme Court

Williams v. State

33 Tex. 345

DecidedJuly 1, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Tex. 345 (Williams v. State) 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

Williams v. State, 33 Tex. 345 (Tex. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Walker, J.

In this case the appellant has filed no brief, nor is the record indexed.

On the motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, we find urged the objections which the appellant probably relies upon.

It is claimed the court erred in charging the jury. We find no • error in the charge.

On motion in arrest it was urged that the description of the house, alleged to have been broken and entered, and from which the goods are said to have been stolen, is not sufficient; and that it is not sufficient to allege that the goods were taken from the possession of James A. H. Hossack, unless it be averred that the goods were the property of said Hossack, or that he was entitled to the possession. We think the indictment is good. The jury [346]*346have passed upon the facts. There was evidence though not very conclusive, to support the verdict.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Walker, J.

In this case the appellant has filed no brief, nor is the record indexed.

On the motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, we find urged the objections which the appellant probably relies upon.

It is claimed the court erred in charging the jury. We find no • error in the charge.

On motion in arrest it was urged that the description of the house, alleged to have been broken and entered, and from which the goods are said to have been stolen, is not sufficient; and that it is not sufficient to allege that the goods were taken from the possession of James A. H. Hossack, unless it be averred that the goods were the property of said Hossack, or that he was entitled to the possession. We think the indictment is good. The jury [346]*346have passed upon the facts. There was evidence though not very conclusive, to support the verdict.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Tex. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-tex-1870.