Neely v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The charging part of the information is set out in the opinion below. A motion in arrest of judgment was made by defendant, for insufficiency of the information, which was overruled. Ho statement necessary.
1Opinion of the Court
SIMKINS, Judge.
Appellant was. convicted of slandering Rosetta Thomas, and his fine assessed at §150, from which he appeals. Both parties are colored.
1. The information charges, that Jim Neeley, in the county of Henderson, Texas, did orally, falsely, maliciously, and wantonly impute to a female in this State, to-wit, the said Jim Neeley did then and there, in the presence and hearing of Zack Worf and Hence Manning, and divers other persons, falsely, maliciously, and wantonly say of and concerning the said Rosetta Thomas, that Tom Cleveland was keeping her, the said Rosetta Thomas, and that Tom…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Deatherage v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
- Franklin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Thomas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Thweatt v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Pate v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.