State v. Schoolfield
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Walker. The case was tried before Hon. Peter W. Gray, one of the district judges. By article 668 of the Penal Code, as it was in the days of slavery, it was declared, that “if any person who deals in intoxicating liquors, either by wholesale or retail, shall* sell to a slave, without the written consent of his master, mistress, overseer, or employer, any intoxicating liquors, or shall give to any such slave, and without such written consent, any intoxicating…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Walker. The case was tried before Hon. Peter W. Gray, one of the district judges. By article 668 of the Penal Code, as it was in the days of slavery, it was declared, that “if any person who deals in intoxicating liquors, either by wholesale or retail, shall* sell to a slave, without the written consent of his master, mistress, overseer, or employer, any intoxicating liquors, or shall give to any such slave, and without such written consent, any intoxicating liquors, he shall he fined not less than $50, nor more than $200.” (O. & W. Dig., p. 542.) The indictment alleged that “…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We are of opinion that the court below erred in considering the general exception which was taken to the indictment.
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides what exceptions may be taken to indictments, dividing them into two classes, exceptions to the form and exceptions which go to the substance of the indictment.
The Code does not contemplate that a general demurrer *503to an indictment, or a general exception which does not notify the court whether the defect of the indictment is one of form or one of substance, shall be heard by the court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure has laid down a set of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McCoy v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Stuckey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1879
- West v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1879