Kitchen v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the District Court of Victoria. Tried below before the Hon. H. C. Pleasants. A term of five years in the penitentiary was assessed against the appellant upon his conviction under an indictment, the-charging part of which reads as follows: “ That Dave Kitchen, on the twenty-third day of November, A. D. 1887, in the county and State aforesaid, in the district court for said county, then in session, and of which said court H. Clay Pleasants was then and there the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Victoria. Tried below before the Hon. H. C. Pleasants. A term of five years in the penitentiary was assessed against the appellant upon his conviction under an indictment, the-charging part of which reads as follows: “ That Dave Kitchen, on the twenty-third day of November, A. D. 1887, in the county and State aforesaid, in the district court for said county, then in session, and of which said court H. Clay Pleasants was then and there the legally qualified judge, there was pending a certain criminal judicial proceeding, wherein the State of Texas was the…
1Opinion of the Court
Hurt, Judge.
This conviction is for perjury. A motion in arrest of judgment was made and overruled, and this is assigned as error. The indictment is in the form prescribed by Judge Willson in his work on Criminal Forms, page 68, with one exception, which relates to the allegation of materiality of the statement upon which perjury is assigned. To this there is no objection urged by counsel for appellants, and if there had been objection upon this ground, it would have been untenable, because this indictment alleges that the matter assigned was material, though not in the form prescribed. This…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. CaywoodSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Bekkeland v. LyonsTexas Supreme Court · 1903
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1899
- State v. DouetteWashington Supreme Court · 1903