State v. Warren
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Smith. The appellee was indicted for a violation of the Act of Jan. 28th, 1840, (Hart. Dig. Art. 870, et seq.) entitled “ An Act to suppress dueling,” in four counts, to this effect: 1st count (under Section 2nd of said Act) for that “ in the said county of Smith, the said J. H. W. did consent to be- “ come a second to one W. H. P. to fight a duel,” &c. 2nd.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Smith. The appellee was indicted for a violation of the Act of Jan. 28th, 1840, (Hart. Dig. Art. 870, et seq.) entitled “ An Act to suppress dueling,” in four counts, to this effect: 1st count (under Section 2nd of said Act) for that “ in the said county of Smith, the said J. H. W. did consent to be- “ come a second to one W. H. P. to fight a duel,” &c. 2nd. Under the same Section, in same county, that he did encourage the said W. H. P. to fight a duel,” &e. 3rd and 4th counts, under Section 4th of the Act, for “ leaving the State, for the purpose of eluding the provisions of said…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
Unquestionably, by the Common Law, the rule was inflexible, that every offence must be charged with a venue; that is, the neighborhood, place or county in which the fact happened; and this must always be within the jurisdiction of the Court. The venue was regarded as matter of substance, and therefore, at Common Law, when the offence was committed in one county, and consummated in another, the venue could be laid in neither, and the offender went altogether unpunished. The great inconvenience arising from this rule of the Common Law, has been remedied by Statute in England, and probably in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Collins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1879
- Vance v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1869