Long v. State

Citations

• 1 Tex. Ct. App. 466

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment.—Exceptions to an indictment were duly taken in the court below because the word “ court” was omitted in the clause purporting to show in what court the indictment was presented. Seld, that although the omission was a mere defect of form, and might have been amended in the court below, yet it was error to overrule the exceptions.</p> <p>2. Charge of the Court.—The court below instructed the jury: “If you believe from the evidence the defendant confessed to Heaton he was guilty, you may find him guilty as charged.” Held, that this, in the form thus given, was objectionable, as a charge on the weight of evidence.</p> <p>3. Same—Driving Cattle from their Range.—The court below charged the jury as follows: “The driving of stock from its accustomed range is a continuous act; and if the jury believe from the evidence that these cattle were driven by defendant’s employes from E. county, and were received by him in R. county, and he continued to drive them, and knew at the time that they were not his cattle, they will find him guilty.” Seld, that this charge was erroneous, because it precluded the jury from considering any evidence tending to exculpate the accused.</p> <p>4. Evidence.—An unauthorized bill of sale, or an unrecorded brand, though inadmissible as proof of title, may be competent evidence to rebut a criminal intent.</p>