*1 Eeports. [February, arrested Now, him was defendant. bought by the if should be- you lieve from the evidence that which was found in the ring pos- defendant, session of the if was found in his any ring possession, not claimed to have been ring Anderson, lost Mrs. by or the defendant said from bought Hillsboro ring or else, or if have a anywhere you should reasonable doubt as to either said matters, will you acquit verdict, the defendant say by your ‘not is not guilty.’ paragraph subject to the criticism contained appellant’s motion,' the defense presented of appellant an affirmative The contention way. of appellant that because it was five months to the subsequent alleged burglary, when defendant was found in possession of the ring, possession defendant could not be all, considered is jury not sound. aWhen found in of stolen no matter possession property, how after the long theft, fact circumstances, admissible evidence with other and his of his if explanation possession, should any be sub- given, mitted, to the and this jurjq the court did in his charge.
We have reviewed each carefully ground motion for new trial, and, while not all of them, discussing find that the special or such of them as requested, presented law applicable case, to this were covered his main charge. Finding error, no reversible is affirmed. judgment Doyle
J. J. v. State. January
No. 1504.
Rehearing denied Practice—Information—Negative —Dentistry—Illegal Averments. Where, upon illegally practicing dentistry, trial of the information was sufficient, overruling a motion in arrest of judgment, the same did not aver that defendant was not because at the time of the law. Following Slack and other 61 Texas Grim. v. Facts—Misdemeanor—Transcript. —Same—Statement case appeal in misdemeanor was from a Criminal District correctly sent with the tran- script. Criminal District Court of Harris. from the Tried Appeal below C. Eobinson. the Hon. W. before Appeal unlawfully practicing dentistry: pen- a conviction from a fine of alty, averments, formal out alleged that
Leaving 10th on the county day March, in said State defendant A. D. or and not physician surgeon, alone for being teeth, did unlawfully extracting engage the purpose Doyle v. State. 1912.] reward, complied for fee and first having *2 duly ap- a of examiners and obtained a license from board the law to issue license practice and authorized the law such pointed of dignity and Texas, in the of the dentistry against peace State the State. no that defendant had license. shows states the case. opinion Hume, Jr., must
F. for Negative allegations Charles appellant. and, therefore, State, Rep., McCann v. 48 W. proved, alleged: S. Lane, C. E. Assistant for the State. Attorney-General, Appellant was HARPER, under Judge. prosecuted and complaint, him without license dentistry charging guilty punishment so to do. He found and at a fine was his assessed of n There no in information, motion to the the record quash but we find a motion in arrest of insufficiency the judgment, alleging However, of the information. from an the informa- inspection of tion, think it sufficiently we an offense the prohibiting prac- tice obtained dentistry without license. having a
While the record there is an order leave to file an granting motion trial, amended for yet new we find no amended motion in the transcript. We consider those in the motion grounds, of the of the complaining court. There no exceptions reserved the charge, record; shown the fact, the record does not disclose there was any This is a misdemeanor charge given. conviction, and record; the statement of not copied in the therefore, under the decisions of this we not consider can same. But if ,we were to consider facts, the statement it shows appellant board; for and was license refused State that he was practicing dentistry of Houston city license, obtained fees therefor, having charging what running as the York Dental known New Parlors. The evidence supports verdict.
Judgment affirmed. Judge.
HARPER, This casewas affirmed on former day this has term, and filed a motion for He rehearing. insists that erred holding the court in refusing motion in arrest judgment. sustain his prosecution was 97 of Act of the Twenty-Ninth under brought chapter Legisla it ture and in that Act 143), provided that (page provisions to of the Act should apply engaged in legally 65 Reports. [.February. Criminal Act, ap passage date n is, have contained pellant’s proper contention the information should in the averments alleging not. 1905, of the law. This question date of is so State, 61 Texas Crim. fully Rep., discussed in Slack v. y S. W. the motion Rep., especiall judgment on and in Crim. rehearing, Rep., Dankworth v. The 61 Texas S. W. discuss again we do not deem necessary the question, but refer to the merely in those opinions We were in error in state- original opinion holding n ment of facts should have been copied transcript. is a misdemeanor, misde- Harris yet County, jurisdiction over meanors has been conferred on the District this case tried the original in the District Court, consequently *3 record as was should have been sent with the done in this.case. That to opinion relating part withdrawn, statement of facts is but when we consider the statement den- it shows that engaged that he tistry; license to dentistry, denied license board.
Motion overruled.
Overruled. Mary A. Miller v. The State.
No. 1912. 1311. —Mingling Exception. Poison—Evidence—Bills specify particular exception portion do not Where bills objections urged, the same testimony to which were considered. —Same—Evidence—Reputation of Prosecutor. admissible, reputation prosecutor’s as to veracity peaceable abiding admitted and law should not have was a citizen, presented. as it is under the record and Wife. —Same—Evidence—Husband divorced, the husband and wife the husband should not have Where confidential relations and permitted testify communications that been during their marital relations. occurred 4.—Same—Evidence—Letters. proven letters were not to have been written thereto, name was attached whose the same could be introduced evidence, cure the error. and a restriction as to their use does not —Same—Charge Court—Limiting Testimony. Where, injure trial upon mixing strychnine with milk with intent milk, showed that hb drank none of the prosecutor, and kill evidence alleged poisonous might gotten some of the mix- grandchild have but that his died, of the court should have of which it the effects ture from would have testimony, and it been better have properly limited altogether. eliminated