Beaumont v. the City of Dallas
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the City Court of Dallas. Tried below before Hon. Kenneth Forge, Judge of the City Court. Appellant was prosecuted by a complaint in the City Court of Dallas which charged her with keeping a disorderly house, and at the trial was convicted, the penalty assessed being a fine of $200. The complaint is as follows: “The City of Dallas “v. “Ho. 417. “ Mrs. Beaumont.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Dallas. Tried below before Hon. Kenneth Forge, Judge of the City Court. Appellant was prosecuted by a complaint in the City Court of Dallas which charged her with keeping a disorderly house, and at the trial was convicted, the penalty assessed being a fine of $200. The complaint is as follows: “The City of Dallas “v. “Ho. 417. “ Mrs. Beaumont. “Personallyappeared before me, the undersigned authority, C. F. Durham, who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says that Mrs. Beaumont, whose given name is to affiant unknown, a better description of whom affiant can not…
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Judge.
This conviction was for keeping a disorderly-house. The name of the appellant is charged as “Mrs. Beaumont.” The statute requires the name of the accused to be stated in the complaint, if known, and if not known, “ some reasonably definite description ” of such accused must be given. In this case this was not done. Code Grim. Proc., art. 236; Bell v. The State, 25 Texas, 574; Pancho v. The State, 25 Texas Grim. App., 402.
It is strange that witnesses can be found who are cognizant of the crime, and yet unable to give “some reasonably definite” description of the perpetrator of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bell v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Kelly v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1917
- Mistrot v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1914