42 Tex. 224 | Tex. | 1874
The appellant was convicted of the offense of grand larceny.
In Arthur v. the State, 3 Texas, 405, the oath prescribed by the Statute was omitted, and as in the present case a different oath was administered to the jury. Justice Wheeler in delivering the opinion in the case said, “ Had the record stated mere- “ ly that the jury were duly sworn, we must have presumed “that the proper oath was administered to them, but when it “ appears affirmatively, that they were not sworn as the law re- “ quires, there is no room for any intendment, of the regularity “ and legality of the proceedings, and the objection must be “ held fatal. When the Legislature have undertaken to prescribe “ the oath which shall be taken, it must be observed, and when “ the record shows the statutory requirement has been disre- “ garded, and the court has proceeded to substitute something “ else in its stead, it will be as if no oath had been admin- “ istered.” The oath administered to the jury in the case before the court, was, after stating “ came a jury of good and law- “ ful men, to wit: Mr. W. Pharr and eleven others,” “ who “ were duly empaneled and sworn, to try the issue joined be- “ tween the State of Texas and Charles Morgan, upon his plea “ of not guilty.” This is not the oath prescribed by the code ; this, upon a similar form of oath, has been held as fatal to the conviction in several cases not yet reported, decided at the last: Austin and Tyler terms.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Beversed and remanded..