State v. Hotchkiss
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Hacogdoches. The case was tried before Hon. Reuben A. Reeves, one of the district judges. Atanacio Hotchkiss was indicted for an assault “with intent to kill and murder.” He was arrested upon a capias and entered into bond, which described the offense as “assault with intent to kill.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hacogdoches. The case was tried before Hon. Reuben A. Reeves, one of the district judges. Atanacio Hotchkiss was indicted for an assault “with intent to kill and murder.” He was arrested upon a capias and entered into bond, which described the offense as “assault with intent to kill.” The defendant did not appear, and when the district attorney moved to forfeit the bond, Francisco Acosta, one of the sureties, moved to quash the bond, because it recited no offense knowrn to the law. The motion was sustained, and the bond quashed. The State appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtDonley, J.
The motion to quash the bond in this cause, because the defendant was not charged with any offense against the law, was improperly sustained. It was held in the case of Hodges v. The State, 20 Tex., 493, that “an assault with intent to kill is an offense for which the accused might be convicted of the assault, if not also of the intent to murder.” The recognizance in that case was held legally sufficient, as also in Wilson v. The State, Galveston T., 1860, [25 Tex., 169.]
The judgment is reversed, and the cause
Eemahded.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wilson v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1860
- Hodges v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hodges v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Meredith v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874