Francis v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Harris. Tried below before Hon. P. W. Gray. The appellant was indicted under Article 321 of the Penal ■Code and convicted. The indictment charged, that John Francis, on the tenth day of November, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, did then and there in said county furnish one Robert Kuykendall, who was then and there lawfully'Confined in the jail of said county, charged,” &c.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harris. Tried below before Hon. P. W. Gray. The appellant was indicted under Article 321 of the Penal ■Code and convicted. The indictment charged, that John Francis, on the tenth day of November, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, did then and there in said county furnish one Robert Kuykendall, who was then and there lawfully'Confined in the jail of said county, charged,” &c. The appellant, among others, assigned the following errors: That the indictment is not in the words of the Statute, and that the offence attempted to be charged in the indictment is unknown to our law.” “ That…
1Opinion of the CourtWiieeleb, J.
The indictment was framed under Art. 321 of the Penal Code. The words of the law which define the crime are : “ If any person shall convey into any jail any disguise, instrument, arms, or any other thing useful to aid any prisoner in escaping, with intent,” &c.
The indictment charges, that the accused did “ furnish one Bobert Kuykendall, who was then and there confined in the jail of said county, charged,” &c., “ with certain instruments,” &c. Do the words used in the indictment describe the offence created by the Statute ? We think clearly not. The words are to be understood according to…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Martin v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Elsner v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- State v. ThompsonTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Collmorgen v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1914
- United States v. KelseyDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.