Maines v. State

Citations

• 23 Tex. Ct. App. 568
• 5 S.W. 123
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 124

Syllabus

<p>1. Perjury—Evidence.—The perjury assigned in this case was the false testimony of the accused upon the trial of one W., for cattle theft. Upon the trial of the accused for the perjury the trial court permitted certain State’s witnesses to testify to conversations among themselves and one M., concerning the suspicion of H. that W. was a cattle thief; and further, to an agreement entered into between the said witnesses and M. developing a plan whereby M. was to detect W. in the theft of cattle; neither the defendant nor W. being present when the said conversations were had and the agreement entered into. Held, that the testimony, being hearsay, was clearly inadmissible; and the conversations and agreement, being res inter alios acta, were not binding upon either W. or this defendant.</p> <p>2. Same.—The State’s witness M. was permitted to testify, on this trial, that after he had testified fully on the examining trial of W., for cattle theft, he fled the country because of serious threats uttered against him. Held that, in the absence of evidence showing that the threats were uttered by the defendant, or that he had some connection with them, the evidence was incompetent, and its admission was erroneous.</p> <p>3. Same—Charge op the Court.—The record of proceedings on the trial of W. for theft was admissible against the defendant on his trial for perjury committed on the trial of W., but only as matter of inducement in committing the perjury, and not to prove the perjury; and, being admitted for that specific purpose, the charge of the trial court, omitting to restrict and 'irnit it accordingly, though not excepted to, was erroneous. See the opinion for the rule stated in extenso.</p>