Donohoe v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from San Patricio County. STATEMENT. The charging part of the indictment which is involved in one of the rulings of the court, reads as follows : “ * * * that William Donohoe, on the 6th day of March, A. D. 1882, in the county of San Patricio and State of Texas, did then and there commit deliberate and wilful perjury, in this, as follows to-wit: that while the grand jury of the county aforesaid were in session and were making inquiry of offenses against the penal…
Read the full summary
Appeal from San Patricio County. STATEMENT. The charging part of the indictment which is involved in one of the rulings of the court, reads as follows : “ * * * that William Donohoe, on the 6th day of March, A. D. 1882, in the county of San Patricio and State of Texas, did then and there commit deliberate and wilful perjury, in this, as follows to-wit: that while the grand jury of the county aforesaid were in session and were making inquiry of offenses against the penal laws, it became and was then and there a material question whether or not William O’ Docharty had wilfully shot two certain…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Hurt, J.
This was a conviction for perjury. It was objected to the indictment that the perjury is not properly assigned.
We have subjected this indictment to the rules laid dowm by Mr. Bishop, and enunciated in Gabrielsky vs. The State, and find that it is not obnoxious to the objection urged against it by the defendant. Gabrielsky vs. State, 13 Tex. Ct. App. 428.
The indictment in hand charges that certain testimony given before the grand jury was material; that is the substance of what was sworn to by defendant, and then avers that “whereas in truth and in fact,” stating whenever…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gabrielsky v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1883