Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Borroum v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided June 8, 1927No. 10215Published

The opinion states the case.

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION.

Without restating the testimony, I desire to supplement the opinion rendered with the following statement of the reasons which impel me to concur in the overruling of the motion for rehearing: I gather from the testimony that it was the appellant who first mentioned to Cox the subject-matter of the quarrel, namely, the mules topping the fence. It was he who first used harsh language; that when the deceased replied in kind, the appellant ran to his house and procured his gun. When he returned the deceased was milking his cow. When the appellant was a short distance from the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tate v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1895
  2. Bennett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
  3. Gaines v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
  4. Taylor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API