Legal Opinion

Martin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 19, 1919No. 5297PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

MORROW, Judge.

The conviction is for forgery. The original statement of facts does not accompany the • record as required by artilee 844, C. C. P., and. the motion of the Assistant Attorney General that it be disregarded must be sustained. Morris v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 375; Salins v. State, 142 S. W. Rep., 908.

The instrument declared on is as follows: “Port Worth, Texas, May 4, 1918. Received of the Port Worth National Bank $100 for account of I. N. Bank, Groveton” signed R. B. Buffington. The overruling of the motion to quash the indictment and the motion in arrest of judgment is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Black v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1901
  2. Shed v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Chimene v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1937
  2. Blake v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1941
  3. Williams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
  4. Threadgill v. CapraSupreme Court of Colorado · 1967
  5. Chimene v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1937

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API