Littles v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, BY STATE.
The State insists that witness Ellis was not and could not be an accessory because, as contended, he was a domestic servant, and under the terms of Art. 78 P. C. such person can not be an accessory. The State cites three cases, Coleman v. State, 44 Tex. 109; Taylor v. State, 41 Tex. 387, and Douglas v. State, 225 S. W. Rep. 536. We have been unable to locate the Taylor case, supra, and neither of the other two authorities support the proposition that Ellis was a domestic servant. In Coleman’s case two women were washing and ironing for a family, and on the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Barres v. Watterson Hotel Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
- Wakefield v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Coleman v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Richardson v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Douglas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920