*1
stated
Thereafter
the witness
impeach
witness.
its own
may
grand jury
was true.
State
testimony
his
before
contradictory statements
by proof of
impeach her
witness
own
injuri-
negative facts
or
either affirmative
to
where he testified
Code, sec.
Penal
Annotated
Branch’s
case.
ous to the State’s
party is sur-
State,
а
“Where
164;
by before that several thе witness Woodard killed a brother of had deceased admissible as tending part show a motive on aсt Remoteness of the homicide. the commission of the go showing proven acts testimony, that such prоbative the fact force of the the testimony excluding it not of itself a reason is remote is particular act logical it and the connection between if there is a 1883; investigation. sec. Branch’s Annotаted W., 368. Hall v. 21 S. 10, inclusive, by qualified exception as 6 to
Bills judge, present error. fail to reversible
Failing error, is affirmed. reversible to find
Affirmed. of the Court Criminal approved Court. v. The T. J. Buckner Stаte. April 18, 1934. Appeal Reinstated
The Ramey Smith, A. Sulphur Springs, of Judge. CHRISTIAN, swindling; —The pun- offense is the ishment, twenty-five a fine оf dollars. No of conviction is found in the record. It fol- jurisdiction. lows that this court is without appeal is dismissed.
Dismissеd. Judge. CHRISTIAN, having perfected, been —The record is reinstated on case considered its merits. complaint The information and were drawn subdi- vision 4 art. in which the defraud, thing or other with intent value giving check, drawing etc., is dеnounced as an offense. Hamm, garage party, operated injured B. Sul- C. phur Springs, place of Texas. came to his business having December, 1932, on the 31st boug'ht repaired. approximately seven automobile Mr. Hamm parts, repairing At he used in car. dollars worth which Mr. delivered to time the automobile was parts cover new used Hamm a check the. $25.50 car, placed money. Hamm Mr. and further to cover $1.15 оrder that it Sulphur Springs Bank in check in the might & Trust Com- be sent to to the Mercantile Dallas Texas, drawn. The pany thе bank check to mailed the cashier of the course, and, it Company, was in due Bank & Trust Mercantile bеhalf, appellant ad- unpaid. Testifying in his own testified, further, writing that the work mitted the check. He unsatisfactory. on his car was Mercantile Bank & Trust Com- one connected
No with It bore pany introduced in evidence. testified. The check was Stopped.” Payment Ob- notation: “Insufficient Funds and a jection the notation made to the in evidence оf was admission objec- ground hearsay. on said check on the that testify, being overruled, injured party pеrmitted tion was proper objection, check “Payment Stopped. There- Insufficient Funds. No Accоunt.” *3 testified, after the assistant cashier of objection, “Payment Stopped Funds.” Dallas bank Insufficient and holding (2d) are we Under in Holland v. S. W. presented. We constrained to hold that reversible error is quote from Holland’s as follows: Case idenity
“There is an entire of. absence as to person Acct.,’ of the without who the notation of ‘No made not which notation a conviction could not be had. There is check wаs evidence the record to show that said Ariz., Valley Phoenix, ever forwarded to the or for party thаt matter that it ever left El Paso. Who who incriminating made this notation which is the State’s main fact? making Was he friеnd or foe? Did same? he have a originally Was the same true? Was the in the bank improperly erroneously charged had same been other to some garnisheed? account? Had the account been None of these questions may case, have been in the them some of brought cross-examination, have been out as a fact on if such right Instead, had been accorded the the unsworn person statement of an unidentified and unknown was intro- guilt. duced evidence as a circumstance of His party cross-еxamination was thus denied. The who made the notation was not under oath. has been convicted pаrte an ex statement made in his absence without even knowing against who him. evidence necessary
“No citation of authorities to show that this hearsay statement on the check of ‘No Acct.’ was of the rank- English juris- est kind under rules and in force since prudence had its birth.” is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded. Ex Parte Lee Burns. *4 Marshall, Hall, Dallas, McCutcheon,
Scott & and Currie for relator.
HAWKINS, Judge. Application prohibition.. is for writ of — application shows that Burns indictment County robbery by Harrison offense thе use of fire- corpus hearing granted arms. On habeas bail in the $10,000.00 day May, excepted sum of 11th 1934. He bail, claiming excessive, to the amount of no- application tice to this court. The was sworn to on day May, day May. the 15th and filed here on the 16th application is further in the the trial court has averred May, day sеt the case down for trial on the 17th and this prohibition preventing court is asked to a writ issue question trying court from until the of bail has been the case appellant’s appeal here from the action of determined on fixing $10,000.00 trial court in bail at