Hathaway v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The indictment is set out in the opinion, and, inasmuch as the appeal was determined upon the sufficiency of the indictment, no further statement of the case is necessary.
Read the full summary
The indictment is set out in the opinion, and, inasmuch as the appeal was determined upon the sufficiency of the indictment, no further statement of the case is necessary. The case was called for trial December 2nd, 1895, and the defendants who were arrested, to-wit; Arthur M. Finley, William Grice, E. T. Hathaway, F. A. Austin and W. E. Hawkins, severed, the other defendants not having been arrested, and E. T. Hathaway, the appellant, was placed on trial, and announced ready, as did the State. After the announcement of ready for trial, the defendant, E. T. Hathaway, filed and presented…
1Opinion of the Court
HENDERSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of engaging in a conspiracy against trade, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50, and prosecutes this appeal. The indictment is in six counts. The first count is as follows: “That in said County of McLennan, State aforesaid, on or about October 1, 1894, John D. Rockefeller, Henry M. Flagler, William Rockefeller, John D. Archbald, Benjamin Brewster, Henry H. Rogers, Wesley H. Tilford, Henry Clay Pierce, Arthur M. Finley, C. M. Adams, J. P. Gruet, E. Wells, Wm. Grice, E. T. Hathaway and F. A. Austin did unlawfully agree, combine, conspire,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Coal Co. v. LawsonTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- Welch v. Phelps & Bigelow Wind Mill Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1896
- Houck & Dieter v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. StallsTexas Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ex Parte KentCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1905