Download Free The Texas Criminal Reports Vol 52 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Texas Criminal Reports Vol 52 and write the review.

Excerpt from The Texas Criminal Reports, Vol. 52: Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas During Part of Tyler Term, 1907; Part of Dallas Term, 1908 Chancellor, Lin v. The State Choice, Ed v. The State Clay, Fletcher v. The State Colbert, Archie v. The State Collins, C. C. V. The State Colson, Horace v. The State. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 edition. Excerpt: ...in the view that under the record, as presented, error is shown to have been committed in receiving the testimony complained of. The motion is overruled. Overruled. While, under Subdivision 5 of Article 717. C. C. P., the defendant nail the right to make a preliminary statement before introducing his evidence. there was no error in not permitting him to read to the jury an aflidavit made by his mother stating that defendant was insane and had been twice adjudged a lunatic and placed in the asylum. 2.--Same--Insanity--Void Judgment-Judgment of Lunacy--Evidence. Where the lunacy judgment in evidence relied upon by defendant bore upon its face evidence that the decision that he was a lunatic was not made by a jury but by a commission which purported to act under Chapter 163, Acts of the Thirty-Third Legislature, which has since been declared void. the same was without force and effect; besides, the evidence showed, in the instant case, that the defendant had been released by the officers of the asylum upon parole, and that the offense took place nearly two years and a half after his release. and that he had been without restraint and had gone at large, and there was nothing upon which the inference could be based that his liberty was not with the full sanction of the asylum authorities. said judgment was not a bar to this prosecution. Distinguishing Hazelwood v. State, 79 Texas Crim. Rep., 483, and other cases. 3.--Same--Argument of Counsel--Lunacy Judgment Where, upon trial of robbery, the defendant introduced a certain lunacy judgment, there was no error in the State's counsel's argument that said judgment was void and had been so declared by the Supreme Court; besides, no request was made to withdraw same. and there was no reversible...