*1 supplemental Finis and a motion for continuance made in behalf attorney. Recently, of Finis in Parsons v. 160 Texas 387, 271 2d this called attention to the Cr. court statutory requirement that a continuance motion for be sworn personally appellant. did not Since swear overruling continuance, to either motion for action of the court in them is not us for before consideration. exception separate There no formal are bills and no state- containing argument prosecutor record,
ment appellant’s complaints appraised. thereto cannot be Finding judgment error, no reversible of the trial court is affirmed. D.
L. Parnell v. State 29,245. February 12, No. 1958. Appellant’s Rehearing Motion for Overruled (Without Opinion) May 7, Written 1958. Spence Allen, B. Sam Johnson Cherry, Falls, & Wichita appellant.
for Attorney, Wilson, District L. T. William Browning, N. As- Douglas, Falls, and Leon Attorney, Wichita District sistant Austin, Attorney, the state. State’s *2 Judge. WOODLEY, years. abortion; punishment, two offense
The 14- evidence, supported by theory, its The state’s grand- by girl her Negro Jackson year-old taken to Doctor no pregnant, found that she was Dr. found mother. Jackson pregnancy. a normal anything other than symptoms indicate attempted girl going had to abort to Dr. Jackson Before examination Dr. Jackson pen staff. After her herself ginger, had heard would cause abortion. she took hot which she indicate symptoms sickness which would had no She slight delivery, except for some a normal not have she would necessarily bleeding, appellant testified did not himself which pregnancy, and which anything and was not uncommon mean resumption menstrual did not show testified Dr. Jackson periods. appellant grandmother girl then went to and her doing away He work as with babies. him if he did such
asked not, lady did. he did but said quiet $180,
Appellant would told them to be said cost morning. physical No examination back the next and to come this was made on visit. grandmother morning girl and her returned
The next appellant’s made the same-character of office made, Dr. had and told the physical Jackson examination hours, after office which she did. He girl alone to come back nothing his result examination. as to the said girl appellant that the at 5:45 and was told returned late, ten minutes and in time lady be five or about would appeared. girl pants get pull Appellant off her told lady put table, then a rubber or catheter she did. The tube gauze private parts, into her while and some cotton After a while told that she “just sat around.” go day. the next She did not and instructed her be back could taken out. know when the tube was just ex-
On the occasion mentioned one was room (who cept appellant, lady appears witness, was the defense girl. Bailey) and the Mrs. Margaret
Returning following day appellant, assisted Whitley, Bryant, per- employees, Eva Smith Charlotte formed “a curettement” or and removed “D.C.” dead fetuses girl’s from the womb.
Dr. testified that an Jackson abortion could be caused rupture aof rubber catheter into the insertion womb so holding which formed the sac membrane the fetus. *3 theory, supported by appel- The defense the girl Bailey, having difficulty
lant and Mrs. was was help; him came to that he had her day come back next busy patients; he was because with other that on her second inspection, he visit made an but help did not have time and to complete an and that examination when she came back that afternoon, five, completed after his examination with the Bailey, assistance Mrs. a who inserted catheter drain to specimen a bladder to secure urine for examination.
Appellant Bailey and Mrs. denied that the catheter was in- purpose causing serted for the an abortion but both admitted that it was inserted. to
The facts as the removal of the dead fetus or twin fetuses following day dispute. are not in material The real issue was destroyed by of the fetus whether life the insertion of day before, or causes, the catheter the to due other such as girl pen ginger, the use of a staff and of hot syphilis, or to causes. other is, however, testimony supporting There theory the defense fetus which removed had been dead for some Appellant said there However, time. tremendous odor. testifying state, employee for the when former asked about a “Well, odor,” you said didn’t “rather offensive notice the odor bad, no.” too also made
Appellant’s evidence issue as to whether design destroy the life of catheter was inserted with the fetus or embryo, or was inserted to drain the bladder. Bailey inserted testified that she On this issue Mrs. bladder, said drain on cross examination catheter to but depth six five to was inserted to of some catheter opening from the into the uretha. inches Rosenblatt, witnesses, Dr. testified Dr. state Collins opening to the the from half inch to from the of the uretha bladder distance an inch and a half. prove permitted prove rebuttal, and did the state was performed manner, in the same that abortions were by going females, catheter, to final “curette- each two other the use of returning purpose, him for the and each for that ment,” cautioned remain silent. and each rejected appellant’s explanation jury defense, and controlling questions: (1) upon to determine three we are called Did refusing charge upon circum- law of the court err in (2) evidence, stand- from the Is the viewed evidence? stantial point state, the con- sufficient to sustain to the most favorable permitting (3)) err in the state did the court And viction? limiting prior prove offenses, such evidence extraneous the two system intent and to the charged? particular offense as to *4 urges appellant issue, is no direct that there the first On girl when she was in the that the fetus alive womb by first examined him. testimony Jackson, no that there was evidence of Dr. The stages weeks), early (8 pregnancy a in the than normal other pregnancy, together in nature that the the known fact of intervening prog- cause, and would continue anof the absence progressed. and that the fetus lived Jor- ress, is direct evidence Rep. 182, 2d 1024. State, 92 S.W. 130 Texas Cr. dan v. intervening theory, under the state’s after no cause There taking ginger. examination, unless it of hot Dr. Jackson’s no method of abortion and there such had heard Dr. Jackson any testimony such would have deleterious effect nowas pregnant, girl pregnancy. that she was had learned by found no reason Dr. Jackson who to ex- examined been had
243 delivery. having pect pregnancy and other than a normal She was pain appellant an when she for abortion. or trouble went direct, light most favorable The evidence is viewed verdict, guilt jury’s appellant’s principal to the and is shows sufficient to sustain the conviction. by rebuttal, showing offered the state in gone
two other had women for an abortion and had pregnancy lady by relieved been of their following day, insertion of catheter and a curettement admissible. attempted so the defense made This because had issue to defeat the the state the claim girl abortion; came for treatment not an unlawful pregnancy her examined but not with Mrs. interferred Bailey; that the catheter was inserted to drain bladder specimen, fetus; urine obtain a take the life of the operation fetus, and that the last was to remove dead girl’s syphilis, own act or because had or for some cause other than insertion of the catheter. may
Commission of other crimes be shown where the intent issue, becomes such as it is where claimed that act question was free from a criminal 18 intent. Texas 68. Jur. prove purpose design, order to showing system
is relevant and isolated tem are sys- offenses admissible from which may Evidence, be inferred. Ed., Criminal Wharton’s 12th Sec. 237. see no
We material difference between the defense here Gray raised and intent” “innocent referred Texas Cr. 337. not, contends, question
It is appel- of whether operation performed in the last lant which he assisted ladies, fetuses, staff of three removed a dead fetus or twin but evening whether insertion of catheter before was taking made with the and intent of the life of the fetus *5 so, state, and did contended as or whether on' the other agree girl hand did and intend to abort the with and not take the life a catheter did fetus or fetuses he following day by a insertion of removed catheter. words, only the defense was that not other the insertion proceedings and but the entire were lawful with catheter girl perform to to
innocent intent treat and not with intent upon a criminal her. abortion agreed that, circumstances, to had
Evidence under similar he pregnant manner and other in the same and did abort women by the this issue of intent. same method was admissible mentioned, admitting The court did not err in the evidence limiting system and intent. judgment is affirmed. DAVIDSON, Judge, dissenting. affirmed,
Being agree unable to that this conviction should be my respectfully I record dissent. high Johnson, fifteen-year-old Negro girl, school
Clemmie repeated acts pregnant the result discovered that she boys. She admitted she intercourse with two different attempted destroy by piercing privates with pregnancy her her having pen penstaff. made known to pregnancy Her been others, grandmother, two, together went with her prosecutrix. Dr. for an examination of of Dr. Jackson office approxi- her and found to be made examination Jackson mately eight May pregnant. examination was made on weeks 7, 1956. 25th, destroy preg- May an endeavor to 24th On ginger means, prosecutrix in hot
nancy by drank another bring water, that result. The she had heard would about which bleeding privates and used sani- day from her she next started period stains were shown for a tary napkin, which blood days. three 5th, thereafter, days prosecutrix, ac- June About eleven grandmother, appel- went to the office of the companied by her grandmother him “if would do such asked work lant. The babies,” inquiry appellant replied doing away lady “doing away “a did.” The matter of did not but that he discussed, “said it would baby cost with” they necessary “just quiet” would be that it $180.00” about Appellant prose- made no examination of the matter. time, was directed return the cuting at that witness morning. following *6 grandmother ap- morning prosecutrix and
The next her time, ap- appellant, At that peared at the as directed. officeof prosecutrix. pellant He did not did an examination make findings that she return herself about but directed advise Appellant at time alone. ad- 5:45 o’clock. She returned “lady or ten minutes late.” The vised her would be five shortly woman arrived thereafter. get panties was told to her
Prosecutrix remove did, up legs. prop This table and she woman inserted packed privates into her with cotton rubber tube or Apellant actively participate in catheter. did not what was done during procedure. prose- out but was in and of the room left, cutrix on the or ten five minutes. When she table day directed her to return next at noon. prosecutrix day placed returned the next she When given hypodermic, table and the same from the the ef- asleep. going fects of which she fell recalled She that before sleep appellant and three nurses were in the room and that “they getting pans gloves things started and all sorts of to- gether.” prosecutrix When awakened she went into another room, lay slept morning. where she down until next She went in a cab. then home days thereafter, prosecutrix
About two returned to the office appellant. A test syphilis, of the blood was made which showed daily days. which she received shots for fourteen She was then advised she cured. receipts prosecutrix payment exhibited ap-
pellant money of various amounts of for his services.
Margaret Bryant, present one the nurses who was appellant, operation performed assisted the described the prosecutrix as a the pellant curettement the course of ap- which the prosecutrix
removed from the womb two dead fetuses. Jackson, prosecutrix visited, Dr. whom first testified that eight pregnancy advanced in weeks when he examined nothing any complications
her. He found indicate that existed pregnancy. Upon arise in the course of or would his direct ex- state amination the witness testified that a catheter would ordinarily producing used is, be abortion —that a law- Upon expressed ful re-direct examination he abortion. opin- by the insertion of a rubber that an abortion could caused ion breaking of the sac the membrane catheter into the womb and in which the fetus was enclosed. *7 depends.
It is the that this conviction above following own appellant’s defense, supported is testimony: and other arranged grandmother prosecutrix him to of the During prosecutrix. that complete a
make examination of the prosecutrix and a catheter the desired to urinate examination unnecessary bladder, making thereby for to drain her it was used the examina- to In the course of her leave the examination table. appellant that from the condition came to the conclusion tion only pregnant prosecutrix but the she was not in which he found might entertained the that she that the fetus was dead. He view during reason, fetus, herself, night that expel and for the the infection, placing vagina prevent packs in the after cotton day next if she with instructions to return the he sent home baby returned the the that time. Prosecutrix did not lose before her a fetus day, at time from which removed next length gave a tre- of time off had been dead such that paid Appellant money mendously the odor. insisted that offensive prosecutrix the service. to him was that facts, that, en- It insisted under the was jury instructed the law of circumstantial titled to have failing refusing court in the trial erred do so. alleged In this case indictment commit- catheter, by use and means the abortion rubber private parts ted forcing thrusting “into the womb of the Johnson, produce tube said Clemmie rubber calculated abor- destroy fetus, tion, the life or and did then there of the em- bryo in the womb of said Clemmie Johnson.” allegation used, descriptive this As to the means charged required to and was be established order to offense State, 472, King Texas v. Cr. 34 2d 282. convict. jury required, court so instructed in order The trial finding convict, embryo or life fetus destroyed by use of a rubber tube. proven destruc
In an abortion case the main fact to be embryo or of the life the fetus in the woman’s womb tion May P.C.; bringing premature of a birth. Art. about Rep. 432, berry 2d 635. 160 Texas Cr. 271 S.W. case, required prove applied then,
As to this state aiding appellant, by principal, himself another destroyed the of a Johnson life fetus Clemmie womb by the use of a tube. rubber proven as a
Where the main fact in the case is matter facts, solely upon inference from other circum- case rests stantial evidence.
There is no direct that the fetus alive in the *8 womb of appellant. Clemmie Johnson when she went to the That only it was then alive to be deduced it from the fact that was prosecutrix alive when Dr. Jackson saw and examined the about then, a month earlier. So that the when the fetus was alive prosecutrix by appellant upon was attended rests alone the in- ference that it a prior was alive month thereto. This inference indulged, notwithstanding must be prosecutrix the fact the that had a passed menstrual flow and privates blood from days drinking ginger. three appearance after hot The last stopped only blood had prior about a week to her visit to and by appellant. examination the
Moreover, attention is called to the fact that when removed by appellant the sufficiently long the fetus had been dead to have very connection, undisputed offensive odor. In that the slightly twenty-four elapsed shows that over had from the hours appellant prosecutrix time first saw the until he removed the fetus —which fact would indicate that dead the fetus was before the prosecutrix. ever saw attended the much as So proof showing to the destruction of live fetus! agree parties All catheter, that a rubber tube or as well cotton, placed by privates was prose- the nurse into the cutrix. connection, prosecutrix
In this all the said was that the tube placed privates; in her she placed did not know which nurse therein; long it and she did not know how it remained as she did not know when it was removed. Whatever was done con- only sumed about five minutes. She knew that she did not remove catheter, when herself, did it and that she feel see
reached home. resting testimony connection with that burden destroyed prove that the life of the fetus state tube, that the state’s wit- it is well to remember rubber might ness, Jackson, pro- that, Dr. testified while an abortion tube, by the such not the method used
duced a rubber profession accomplish that result. medical apparent It is that there is direct by using destroyed tube. It is the life of the fetus was rubber only inference that can be said that tube was rubber prosecutrix destroyed placed in the womb of life fetus thereafter found her womb. apparent case has said it is
From what been state’s solely upon depends trial circumstantial evidence and instructing jury law fell in not court into error thereto. relative why a
There is another reason on circumstantial evi- necessary this under the facts of case. dence for the state and shows All the both privates was inserted into or rubber tube catheter nurse, Bailey. Mrs. There was no evidence the female suggestion any from source inserted nor *9 depend upon guilt, then, applica- an must Appellant’s catheter. principals. of law tion of the ap- recognized principals of court law following The trial charge: gave the facts under plicable guilty acting together persons principals who are of “All are actually an an offense. offense is of When the commission and, persons present, more but others are one or committed encourage by intent, knowing aid acts or words unlawful actually engaged gestures in the commission of un- those aiding encouraging persons principal are act, so such lawful prosecuted as offenders, may such.” be 66, charge Art. P.C. follows however, noted, trial court appli- made no It will be so, requested to do not the facts. He was of that law to cation do. his failure to so exception reserved to an nor was P.C., 66, Art. guilty principal under as a appellant to For be present appellant facts must established: these be when Bailey produce an abortion intended to that Mrs. knew prosecutrix; privates of into inserted that, knowing catheter intent, appellant aided her Bailey’s unlawful Mrs. Texas Mowrey of the abortion. in the commission 2d 239. 105 S.W. Cr. finding express require an failure the trial court to unnecessary renders jury in order to convict no means charge such facts are made circumstantial evidence when on depend upon circumstantial evidence. produce Bailey intended to is no that Mrs.
There an instru- or catheter was not such The rubber tube abortion. commonly produce that result. ment as was used or calculated to part Bailey Mrs. not the unlawful intent on the could Hence solely from the use of the catheter. inferred be Bailey being true, part on the Mrs. unlawful act Such dependent upon circumstantial evidence. is demonstrated to be follows, then, guilt depended upon appellant’s It that as cir- appropriately issue should cumstantial evidence have been jury. to the submitted reasoning demonstrate the neces-
The same facts and sity circumstantial evidence also demonstrate the support insufficiency the conviction. of the evidence to guilt guilt depend Appellant’s of Mrs. is made intent, because, knowing Bailey en- her unlawful aided and Bailey couraged Mrs. her in the commission of abortion. If abortion, guilty neither would the was guilty. guilty, the facts must show then for to be
So guilt Bailey. of Mrs. we find are examined for that the facts When *10 prose- Bailey testimony knew the a line that Mrs. there prior the time pregnant or had ever seen her cutrix was prosecutrix. privates There of the inserted the catheter into Bailey “wilfully, is, then, any proof that Mrs. an entire absnce prosecuting designedly” produced on the witness an abortion necessary fact —which to be established to show the commis- sion of the crime of abortion. having alleged produced by state the abortion was
the insertion of privates prosecuting the catheter into the of the witness and all the evidence at no time inserted privates, appellant guilty the catheter into her can be only when principal shown to abe to the commission of crime Bailey. abortion Mrs. This the facts fail to show. I come now to a discussion the admission of women, committed an abortion on two other one of which occurred prior about three months to and the other about four subsequent months to the commission of the offense here charged. In each permitted testify instance woman which, case, the details of the by performed abortion in each privates days the insertion of a catheter in her and some appellant performed thereafter operation privates, on her longer after pregnant. which she was no testimony depicted appellant general- This abortionist, as an ly, performance technique of which he followed the same as used in instant case. damaging prejudicial effpct of that can- admissible,
not be denied. If it was not of the convic- a reversal mandatory. tion would be jury’s expressly the trial court limited to the system
consideration “the intent and of the defendant patricular charged indictment, so, act if it does do purpose.” for no other then, question,
There is no admit- but system ap- ted because it tended to show the intent and pellant admissibility and for no other reason. The of the testi- mony standpoint must be tested from that and no other.
When was indicted in this case and when he was presented called for trial charged it was to answer the accusation nothing in the indictment. There was there to indicate placed that when he was on trial to answer the accusation against would at that time also called to defend himself having prose- committed an abortion on woman other than the cutrix, here, three months before also still another different four after woman months the indictment in this case
251 exactly called Yet that is what returned. instant trial. do of those abor- prove innocent himself If failed for the tions, those crimes jury was authorized to consider effecting system used in and the his intent of for which he was on trial. abortion right by jury guaranteed our Constitu- If the trial charged anything crime it means one with tions means at all charged and to he is entitled to know the offense with which guaran- keeping with that tried for that crime and no other. In be admitting guarded against proof zealously have tee the courts permitted proof there- and of other and extraneous offenses have go system, they intent, identity, or are only or when to show gestae. 1, part P.C., Edition, res 2d Branch’s Vol. Sec. pro- are accord 188. The authorities there cited in one believed, ques- position testimony, that if the state’s leaves no if identity, proof tion intent will not as to the of other offenses identity. received, they It is a correct because show intent or ad- rule of law that must under there be some issue evidence identity at the trial intent duced as to the the accused be- proof fore of other and extraneous offenses becomes admissible. Among which, my opinion, cases from this court stand State, 337, Gray out are Texas 178 77 Cr. S.W. Rep. 241, 152
Daniel v. Texas 2d Cr. 637. Gray
In the case this court said: hand, “On other the well-settled rule in seems to be state, question this when evidence adduced on the trial leaves of, doing complained act intent the accused offenses, though of other even similar character and kind, is not issue of intent.” admissible case, charged, Daniel
In the where theft the offense case, state, development proved itsof the witness White person attempted accused to swindle other than the prosecuting place. witness at another It was held that time inadmissible, as a White’s reason for holding this court said: approve of the evidence of the White
“To the admission proposition if would this transaction commit court A. and to murder is on trial for assault with intent accused intent, accused tenders no issue of an innocent way by case, in no evidence controverts the State’s the State may put nevertheless in evidence the fact that accused also as- him, D., intent kill saulted B. with likewise C. al- *12 though gestae trial, are not res the transactions of one every apparent have no conection each And so with with other. (Emphasis, supplied.) other tuhere intent is an element. offense unthinkable, contrary principle “This is that an accused tried on the the case then be merits of before the court.” peculiar application
That statement has a here. direct proof offenses, It is the rule that of other in order to show accused, only permitted intent is an will be when there then, Conversely, issue under the evidence as to that intent. if facts, there proof be no issue under the of other offenses will received, they be because show the intent of the accused. any
I submit that this record will searched in testi- be vain mony any which or tends shows to show issue intent. All that appellant did, as shown and that of Mrs. Bailey, deny any part was to act on their killed the fetus prosecuting witness —which act the state relied show an abortion. Nor did the admit that the insertion destroyed fetus; explained of the catheter that what was done was with innocent intent. incriminatory
The entire defense was a denial of state’s testimony. any appellant’s This did not raise issue of intent on part. applicable: was said in
What the Daniel case is Proof of contrary principle is other crimes and would be to the that one crime must accused of be tried on the merits the case then before the court. proof trial court said that other abortions was showing system.
admissible as viewpoint I am unable to understand this court. of the trial sustaining holding, my In the trial court’s brethren make point proof effort to out wherein term admissible. If the “system” intent, synonymous as was used then what I have showing applicable said relative to the intent here. hand, “system” if the other the word was not used as show- On
253 ing purpose, intent it could used be but for one other identify guilty party. would It must be to as the remembered that the fact that crimes two more distinct may system. way have committed the same does not show been Long State, 546, 363; Rep. v. 39 Texas Cr. 47 Smith v. S.W. State, 80, Rep. 501; State, 52 Texas Cr. Missouri 105 S.W. v.
Texas Cr. 2d 68. systematic Proof the commission of crimes system. State, accused does not show 103 Texas Walker Cr. Rep. 555, 281 In that S.W. 1070. case the state’s case showed that guilty rape assault, persons accused was and other permitted testify were that the accused had assaulted them in same manner. It was held such was not admis- sible, especially showing system. The rule there announced is strikingly applicable here. Mayes Rep. 612, *13 65, 118 Texas Cr. 2d
this court similarity held that of transactions proximity of time thereof system do not of themselves constitute so as to ren- testimony concerning der other offenses admissible. 416, Lawrence v. 128 Texas Cr. 82 S.W. 2d is, my mind, outstanding touching the proof case this court of other system. offenses under the rule of In that case Lawrence killing was on trial young hunting of a man found ducks ranch, shooting on his appellant identity him with a rifle. The of the person as the by any who fired shot was not shown testimony; direct identity depend entirely upon was made to circumstantial position evidence. The ap- state took the pellant against persons entertained hunting malice all found ranch, ducks on his and introduced evidence that he persons had at hunting shot three other found ducks there under like circumstances and conditions as when he killed the deceased.
By opinion in question length which the was discussed at light prior holdings, and in the of this court held inadmissible shooting as to the of the other hunters. A Shepard’s reference to Citation will reveal the number of times the Lawrence case has been cited. It has not been overruled or pronouncement modified. If there is one in the case which conclusively controls this proof case it is of other offenses as constituting system may identifying be shown for the of guilty person. means, accused as the then, nothing That more or than identity less that if the of the accused is known or applica- testimony proof system direct of has no
established proof system It can tion. also means that of arise be author- long only ized any question as there circumstantial evidence cases. So exists identity accused, is as to of the the case one of circumstantial evidence. then, my conclusion, commission proof
It is of proof as other abortions was not admissible incompatible my system. position irreconcilable apparent. is If this not a circumstan- brethren take case of hold, required, they tial evidence and thereon was identity then was no issue as to the of the there therefore, authorizing guilty party, and the essential element hand, proof system proof the other if absent. On system, as the ma- other abortions admissible because holds, jority opinion the case was one of circumstan- is because jury trial court should have instructed tial evidence thereon. first, say,
My position: They find themselves in this brethren involving case was not circumstantial evidence and one failing jury trial court not err in to instruct did holding they say that Then in the face of that thereon. system it showed identi- other offenses admissible because fying guilty party, only arise as the which could case. a circumstantial evidence true, holding positions
Both cannot be exist. The there- incompatible. fore both irreconcilable *14 things else, showing Irrespective of all com- by appellant crime months after mission of the of abortion four on trial for he was then commission the offense which any any under or for reason. not admissible circumstance fanciful, whereby may reason, it or I can conceive real committing today an act is controlled said intent in that one’s be days, four may or what does ascertained from shown he be months, thereto, weeks, years subsequent four four four involving persons. wholly different unrelated case here, they hold, exactly my when Yet is what that brethren showing appellant committed an say after he was person, months four abortion different he alleged was here which have committed abortion to which the intent with trial, admissible prior thereto. months acted four acts one always that the intent with understood
I have time of at the he does ordinarily from what ascertained be surrounding commission of and under the circumstances act. at the acts done from the if intent is to be ascertained
So subsequently time, necessarily one does follows that what my purpose. Yet that is what can not utilized for thereto be do, here. brethren prevent the years has served to which for all these
The bridle being criminal, generally, trying has now state from one for light green given the has now removed. The state been been against prove all the other crimes and offenses one trial of, before, may at the time or subse- committed he has or have he is hailed into court quent offense for which the date of the trial. to answer and stand remain with the
Proof such other crimes is allowed to they con- jury from the trial court can admonition determining intent sider such for the “the charged system particular act of the defendant indictment, if it does so.” do system jury jury is. The are told what intent or Nowhere any liberty other crimes for are thus at to consider say purpose they please system. is intent or ought liberty him under A man’s not to taken from such circumstances.
A reversal of this case demanded under the record. To its my protest. affirmance I reiterate
Herbert Lee Sanders Et Al v. State. 29,726. May 7,
No. 1958.