Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the State of Texas Volume 9 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1881 Excerpt: ... RULINGS ON MOTIONS. F. E. Conrad V. The State, Wesley Young Et Al. V. The State, and G. W. M. Duck Et Al. V. The State.--The appeals in these cases are dismissed because no briefs were filed in the courts below in behalf of the appellants, as required by the rules prescribed for the District Court. 2 Texas Ct. App. 674. W. L. Fletcher V. The State.--The appeal in this case is dismissed, on the motion of the assistant attorney-general, because the bond is not in double the amount of the judgment and costs, and is otherwise defective in not being conditioned as required by art. 1404 of the Revised Statutes. F. E. Conrad V. The State.--The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained because, first, the writ-of-error bond is not conditioned as the law requires either for a cost or a supersedeas bond; and, second, because no briefs were filed in the court below, as required by the rules prescribed for the District Court. Mark Tiner Et Al. V. The State.--Because no briefs were filed by appellants in the court below, as required by law, and because the supersedeas bond misdescribes the judgment and states no offence, the appeal in this case is dismissed. J. H. Wilson Et Al. V. The State.--The motion to dismiss the writ of error in this case is sustained because the plaintiffs in error have filed no briefs in the court below, as required by law, nor in this court, nor made appearance by counsel. INDEX. A. ABORTION. In a prosecution for giving a drug or medicine to a pregnant woman to produce abortion, it is not necessary to allege what drug or medicine was given. That it was calculated to produce abortion is sufficient. Watson v. State, 287. ACCOMPLICE. 1. Defendant encouraged two boys to steal certain hogs, promising'to pay a certain price for them. Subsequently, wi...

R900

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles9000
Mobicred@R84pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1881 Excerpt: ... RULINGS ON MOTIONS. F. E. Conrad V. The State, Wesley Young Et Al. V. The State, and G. W. M. Duck Et Al. V. The State.--The appeals in these cases are dismissed because no briefs were filed in the courts below in behalf of the appellants, as required by the rules prescribed for the District Court. 2 Texas Ct. App. 674. W. L. Fletcher V. The State.--The appeal in this case is dismissed, on the motion of the assistant attorney-general, because the bond is not in double the amount of the judgment and costs, and is otherwise defective in not being conditioned as required by art. 1404 of the Revised Statutes. F. E. Conrad V. The State.--The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained because, first, the writ-of-error bond is not conditioned as the law requires either for a cost or a supersedeas bond; and, second, because no briefs were filed in the court below, as required by the rules prescribed for the District Court. Mark Tiner Et Al. V. The State.--Because no briefs were filed by appellants in the court below, as required by law, and because the supersedeas bond misdescribes the judgment and states no offence, the appeal in this case is dismissed. J. H. Wilson Et Al. V. The State.--The motion to dismiss the writ of error in this case is sustained because the plaintiffs in error have filed no briefs in the court below, as required by law, nor in this court, nor made appearance by counsel. INDEX. A. ABORTION. In a prosecution for giving a drug or medicine to a pregnant woman to produce abortion, it is not necessary to allege what drug or medicine was given. That it was calculated to produce abortion is sufficient. Watson v. State, 287. ACCOMPLICE. 1. Defendant encouraged two boys to steal certain hogs, promising'to pay a certain price for them. Subsequently, wi...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

February 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

February 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 13mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

248

ISBN-13

978-1-153-94258-4

Barcode

9781153942584

Categories

LSN

1-153-94258-5



Trending On Loot