State v. Jordan
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. The indictment was quashed “ because there was no sufficient venue laid in the body of said indictment.”
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
The indictment is to the effect, that the grand jurors for the State of Texas, duly drawn, &e., to present all crimes.and offences, cognizable by the District Court, committed within the body of the county of Rusk, do upon their oath present, that Andrew Jordan, on the first day of November, 1851, in the county of Rusk, did bet money at a gaming bank, at faro, &c.
The alleged objection to this indictment is, that no sufficient venue was laid in the body of the indictment; that, instead of charging the offence to have been committed in the county of Rusk, it should have been…
2Cited by7 opinions
- McGill v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1888
- Bryan v. CrumpTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Howell v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
- State v. WalterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- Foster v. ShephardTexas Supreme Court · 1871
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.