History
  • No items yet
midpage
Malloy v. State
35 Tex. Crim. 389
Tex. Crim. App.
1896
Check Treatment

Plea to the jurisdiction of the court was urged, because the transfer misnamed the accused, and recited the offense to be "gaming," whereas the offense charged was in fact for keeping and exhibiting a gaining table and bank. An amended transfer was then filed, properly naming the accused, but which did not name the offense. A second plea to the jurisdiction was then urged, because of this omission to name the offense with which the accused was charged. It was proper to amend the certificate of transfer. It was unnecessary to name the accused on the minutes of the District Court, in noting the presentment of the indictment in that court, and it is not required to make entry on said District Court minutes of the offense charged. Code Crim. Proc., Arts. 415-417; Willson's Crim. Proc., § 1943, for authorities; Tellison v. State, ante, p. 388. It is not controverted that *Page 391 the second transfer correctly transcribes the minutes of the transferring court. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Malloy v. State
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jan 29, 1896
Citation: 35 Tex. Crim. 389
Docket Number: No. 829.
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.