Rummel v. State

Citations

• 22 Tex. Ct. App. 558
• 3 S.W. 763
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 288

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Evidence—Case Stated.—In a theft ease wherein the “rule” was invoked, one If. advised the defendant’s counsel, during the examination of a defense witness, that he knew important facts in connection with the said witness’s testimony. If. was then offered by the defense as a witness, but was excluded upon the State’s objection that the -Tule” had not been applied to him, and that he had heard all of the testimony of the preceding witness. After the examination of other witnesses H. was again offered as a witness, and was again excluded upon the same objection and the further one that the defense had failed to place him under the rule after his former rejection, and that he had since heard the testimony of several witnesses. Held, correct.</p> <p>2. Same—Charg-e of the Court.—However correct a requested instruction of the court may be, it is properly refused if its substance is embodied in the general charge.</p> <p>3. Theft—Evidence.—See the statement of the ease for evidence held sufficient to support a conviction for cattle theft.</p>