Williams v. State

Citations

• 24 Tex. Ct. App. 32
• 5 S.W. 658
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 159

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Continuance—Bill op Exceptions.—The action of the trial court in refusing an application for continuance will not be revised unless exception to such action is presented by proper bill.</p> <p>3. Jury Law—Case Stated.—Under an established rule of practice in this State, no challenge to the array of jurors selected by jury commissioners can be entertained. The record in this case discloses that, at the previous term of the trial court, the term being then limited to three weeks, the court appointed jury commissioners to select jurors to serve at the ensuing term, and the said commissioners selected jurors to serve for three weeks. After the adjournment of the said previous term the Legislature enlarged the term of the trial court to four weeks; and, upon the assembling of court, the trial judge appointed commissioners to select jurors to serve at the next term, and caused them also to draw and select jurors to serve at the fourth week of the then term. It was before the jury thus selected to serve during the fourth week that the accused in this case was tried. His challenge to the array was based upon the ground that the jury was not selected by the jury commissioners appointed at the previous term of the court. Held, that the challenge w as properly overruled. See the opinion in extenso on the question.</p> <p>3. Practice—Privilege op Counsel.—Violent language used in argument by the prosecuting counsel, if the same was called forth and demanded by remarks of counsel for the defense, can not be held to constitute such an abuse of the privilege of argument as will vitiate a conviction. See the statement of the case in illustration.</p>