Legal Opinion

Herod v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 14, 1900No. 1919PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Ho statement necessary.

1Opinion of the Court

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was charged with “unlawfully keeping open, and permitting his store and place of business to be open, for the purpose of trade and traffic and sale;” also, that “he did then and there sell and barter goods, to wit, whisky, to one Gordon Onstadt; and being then and there a merchant and grocer éngaged in the sale of liquors,” etc., “and said sale being upon Sunday, January 1, 1899.” He was found guilty, and the jury assessed his punishment at a fine of $20. We do not think the court erred in refusing to quash the indictment, as the same is in the usual form, and is a…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. Echols v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1914
  2. Neyland v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1916
  3. Sweeney v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
  4. Lubbock v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912
  5. Roberts v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1927

10 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