Callahan v. State

Texas Supreme Court
Callahan v. State, 30 Tex. 488 (Tex. 1867)
Morrill

Callahan v. State

Opinion of the Court

Morrill, C. J.

The first error assigned is, that the court erred in re-opening the continuance of the cause against the protest of Callahan. The record shows that when the cause was called for trial, the witnesses for the state being absent, the defendant insisted upon a trial, but a continuance was granted with the express understanding that it should be set aside on the appearance of the witnesses. When this took place, therefore, the defendant, if his witnesses were not present, could have made a showing for continuance, if he had any cause; but he assigned no cause, and we see no cause of error in the court ordering a trial.

The second, third, and fourth errors, to the effect that the court erred in his charge to the jury and in refusing the charges requested, and also in receiving the verdict of the jury in the absence of the defendant and his counsel, can be disposed of by a statement of the fact, that the charge given was as favorable to the defendant as the law allowed, and there was nothing in the record showing the absence of the defendant on the rendition of the verdict, and we cannot presume either that the court erred in this respect, or, if it were so, that the counsel for the defendant would have neglected to have so incorporated in the record, that it could be examined and corrected by this court.

We see no error in the rulings and charge of the court, and the testimony was sufficient to authorize the verdict of the jury. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Callahan, alias W. D. Jackson v. State
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
When the case was called for trial the witnesses of the state were absent, and the prosecuting attorney moved for a continuance, which the accused opposed; the case was continued, and four days afterwards, the witnesses having appeared, the continuance was set aside, whereat the accused said he was surprised, and protested, but did not move a continuance for want of witnesses. There was no error in this. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2984,2986.) Where the charge defined theft in the language of the code, and the proof was clear that the property was stolen in one county and sold by the accused in another, there was no error in the charge, nor was the court obliged to treat the statements of the prisoner, when selling the property, as confessions. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 2381,3061, 3127, Notes 683, 761.) When the record does not show whether the prisoner was present when the verdict was rendered or not, the court will not presume that he was absent. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 3088, 3089, Note 752.) Where the property stolen in one county was the next day sold by the accused in another, he saying that he had bought the property, and giving reasons, not proved to be true, why he wanted to sell, there was no error in refusing a new trial. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3137, Note 702.)