Ritter v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Williamson. This ease manifestly.appears to be the result of family difficulties. The defendant was the son-in-law of 'W. F. Ball, the father of Taylor Ball, who was alleged in the indictment to be the owner ’ of the premises. The land had belonged to W. F. Ball, and with bis consent and assistance the defendant -built and occupied the bouse for some two years.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Williamson. This ease manifestly.appears to be the result of family difficulties. The defendant was the son-in-law of 'W. F. Ball, the father of Taylor Ball, who was alleged in the indictment to be the owner ’ of the premises. The land had belonged to W. F. Ball, and with bis consent and assistance the defendant -built and occupied the bouse for some two years. W. -F. Ball conveyed the land to Taylor Ball, and differences seem to.have arisen between the latter 'and the defendant. The defendant vacated the housej but continued to claim it…
1Opinion of the CourtOgden, J.
At the March term, 1869, of the District Court for Panola county, the appellant in this case was, with others, indicted for wilfully and maliciously tearing down and removing from the land of Taylor Ball, one house of the value of one hundred dollars, and at the April term of said court appellant claimed and obtained a severance from his co-defendants. He was placed upon trial, tried and convicted, and from the judgment of that court he has taken this appeal. On the trial, below, defendant’s counsel moved to quash the indictment for several reasons, which motion was overruled by the court,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Floyd v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1956
- Floyd v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1966
- Floyd v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1956
- Murray v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1886