Hutto v. State

Citations

• 7 Tex. Ct. App. 44

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment. —In the second count of an indictment the name of the month was written “Janury.” In the first count (which was dismissed) it was. correctly spelled. Held, that a motion in arrest of judgment, based on the . misspelling, was correctly overruled. Bad spelling does not vitiate, and the word is idem sonans with January; and, moreover, the first count had it correct.</p> <p>2. Same.—In an indictment for the theft of property of one Pettis, his name' was in one place written-“Pittis,” if the dot over the second letter was the controlling sign; otherwise the letter appears to be “ e,” and the name correctly spelled. Held, not sufficient cause in arrest of judgment.</p> <p>3. Verdict. — The charge to the jury maybe looked to for the purpose of ascertaining the offence of which the verdict convicts the accused.</p> <p>4. Theft of Cattle. —If the brand on a stolen animal be the only evidence of ownership relied on by the State, then it is necessary for the State to prove the record of the brand. But, irrespective of any brand, the ownership and identification of the animal may be shown by the flesh-marks, or other satisfactory evidence.</p> <p>5. Charge of the Court.—It is always advisable to give in charge to the jury the presumption of innocence as well as the doctrine of reasonable doubt, and a refusal to give it is error. The mere omission of the presumption, however, when not asked, is not ground for reversal.</p> <p>6. Same. — The charge need not submit a minor degree of the offence alleged in the indictment, unless there is evidence requiring it.</p> <p>7. New Trial. — To entitle a defendant to a new trial on- account of newly discovered- evidence, he must bring himself within the established rules , which control the subject. It is well settled that if the new evidence be merely cumulative of that adduced at the trial, it furnishes no ground for a new trial.</p>