Hubotter v. State

Citations

• 32 Tex. 479

Syllabus

<p>1— In the conduct of public trials, a large discretion must be accorded to courts of original jurisdiction; and unless that discretion has been wan. tonly or most unwisely exercised, an appellate tribunal will not interpose to control it.</p> <p>2— After the district attorney had accepted the panel, the court below allowed him to challenge one of the jurors. Held, that there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prohibits such action by the court below; and where nothing appears in the record to the contrary, this court will regard it as the exercise of a sound and wise discretion, not revisable by this court.</p> <p>3— An indictment under Article 2410, Paschal’s Digest, as amended by the act of November 12th, 1866, for the theft of “two beeves, the same being cattle, each of the value of fifteen dollars,” is sufficiently certain in its descriptive averments of the property stolen.</p> <p>4— See the opinion of the court for a critical analysis and definition of the</p> <p>term “ cattle,” as used in the above mentioned enactments, o—The court below permitted the district attorney to prove what the value of the stolen property was in United States currency, such proof being objected to on the ground that no particular kind of money should be de signaled. Held, not to be error which'this court would revise.</p>