Humbard v. State

Citations

• 21 Tex. Ct. App. 200
• 17 S.W. 126
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 119

Syllabus

<p>1. Slander—Indictment for slander by imputing a want of chastity to a female, setting forth the words constituting the alleged imputation, and otherwise conforming to Ho. 403 of Willson’s Criminal Forms, is sufficient to charge the offense of oral slander of a female as that offense is defined in Article 645 of the Penal Code of Texas.</p> <p>2. Same—Evidence.—From the rule which requires that the slanderous words shall be substantially alleged, it follows that they must be substantially proved. This rule does not require that all of the words shall be proved, but that the essential, important, material portion of the slander must be proved as laid. Proof of one imputation will not support the allegation of another.</p> <p>3. Same—Variance.—The name of the alleged injured party as it is designated in the indictment must be sufficiently proved to identify the party, and unless this is done the proof will not only be held insufficient, but the variance between the proof and the allegata will be held fatal. See this ease in illustration.</p>