Ewing v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the County Court of Hunt. Tried below before the Hon. H. B. Simonds. The indictment purported to charge the accused with having administered medicine to a pregnant woman, with intent to procure an abortion; but, as stated in the opinion, the word ‘ ‘ did ’ ’ was omitted where it was necessary to the allegation.
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.
The indictment in this case is fatally defective because it fails to allege that the defendant “ did” the acts charged as constituting the crime. This word is indis*363pensable, and cannot be supplied by intendment. The State v. Hutchinson, 26 Texas, 111; The State v. Dougherty, 30 Texas, 360 ; Edmondson v. The State, 41 Texas, 496.
The record in this case nowhere discloses the fact that the jury trying the case were sworn. Pasc. Dig., Art. 3029 ; Arthur v. The State, 3 Texas, 405 ; Martin v. The State, 40 Texas, 19; Bawcom v. The State, 41 Texas, 189; Edmondson v. The State, 41 Texas, 496; Sutton…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Edmondson v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Martin v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Sutton v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Arthur v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1848
- State v. DaughertyTexas Supreme Court · 1867
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.