Legal Opinion

Gaut v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 14, 1906No. 3390PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of uttering a forged instrument in writing, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years; hence this appeal.

The indictment contains several counts, and the conviction was on the second count. Appellant moved to- quash the same on the ground that it shows it was intended to be the act of a different person than that charged in the indictment. The second count in the indictment sets out the uttering of a certain forged instrument by appellant to J. W. Pier-son, upon which the prosecution is predicated, which is set…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Nichols v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1898

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Watson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1917
  2. Jackson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1917
  3. Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1918
  4. Rodifer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
  5. Bloch v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1916

3 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