Rainwater v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The State proved that defendant uttered substantially the words alleged in the indictment inputing a want of chastity to a female named therein. The defense by numerous witnesses proved acts of lewdness on the part of prosecutrix and that her general character for chastity was bad in the community in which she lived. The State by way of rebuttal showed counterwise that the reputation of prosecutrix for chastity was good.
1Opinion of the Court
BROOKS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of slander, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $750. Appellant tendered to the court the following special instruction: “The jury are further charged as part of the law of this case, that the indictment charges that defendant falsely and maliciously and falsely and wantonly did impute to Mrs. B. P. Henderson a want of chastity, etc., by the use of the words uttered of and concerning said Mrs. B. P. Henderson alleged in the indictment. In order to convict defendant of the charge alleged in the indictment, you must believe from the evidence beyond a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Branch v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Collins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1898
- Van Dusen v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1895
- Humbard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kelly v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1917
- Roberts v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Kelley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1917