Grant v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the District Court of Medina. Tried below before the Hon. T. M. Paschal. In the opinion a reference is made to the 6th instruction given to the jury, which was as follows: “The declarations made by the defendant at the time he was found in possession of the hog, if freely and voluntarily made, and if not under arrest, when offered by himself in evidence, are admissible as such, and are entitled to such weight as you see proper to give them—those which are against…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Medina. Tried below before the Hon. T. M. Paschal. In the opinion a reference is made to the 6th instruction given to the jury, which was as follows: “The declarations made by the defendant at the time he was found in possession of the hog, if freely and voluntarily made, and if not under arrest, when offered by himself in evidence, are admissible as such, and are entitled to such weight as you see proper to give them—those which are against himself' being taken to be true.” The statements of the accused were elicited in evidence in his cross-examination of…
1Opinion of the CourtEctor, P. J.
The defendant in the court below assigns quite a number of errors, which he says were committed upon the trial of this cause in the district court, viz.:
“ 1st. The court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for a continuance.”
The indictment was filed in the district court of Medina county, on October 3, 1876, as shown by the record. On October 10, 1876, the defendant filed his application for a continuance, for the want of the testimony of George Williams and Monroe Brackens, residents of Medina county. He states, in his application for continuance, that he had a subpoena issued for these…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bishop v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Lunn v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Banks v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- Horseman v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875