*1 1894.] 5 Shannon v. State. no explanation. They were actionable in per se a civil suit. Elam v. 23 Badger, Townsh. Sland. and 498; L., sec. 172. Ill., According Bishop (section to “It 799): duty Mr. is the to jury construe plain to words clear allusions notoriety matters universal ac- to their cording meaning, everybody obvious else who reads them must In jury understand them.” order to to enable the arrive at local meaning phrase general of a not well defined in use, an innuendo may become and in necessary; such case witnesses testify as to the in signification meaning or of such locality. words Commonwealth Mass., v. 107 202. Morgan, And, moreover, the courts competent prove all that it agree is facts circumstances attend- ing words, speaking the situation of the parties, and their subject relations matter or occasion the and any other slander, portions or all of testimony the same conversations. This is admitted order the jury correctly enable determine the ultimate fact, in what In wit, sense the words were uttered. this case, while we hold that it was proper for the court to have admitted the testimony the witness as to what he understood the defendant to mean words used, yet we fail see the defendant any prejudice how suffered thereby, as the words clearly unequivocally themselves indicated the meaning appellant intended to convey; trying the case could have arrived no other regard conclusion the defend- ant’s using such meaning language. Barton v. 16 Holmes, 252. Iowa,
The motion this case is overruled. Motion overruled.
Judges all and concurring. Ike Shannon v. State. 1.
No. 932. Decided December ON MOTION FOB BEHEABING. Jury Law—Challenge for Cause—Construction of Statute.—By subdivision Procedure, provided, 13 of article Criminal challenge Code of is as a for cause ‘‘ uror, j hearsay
to a that from or otherwise there established in the mind of the guilt such conclusion as to or innocence of the defendant as will influence him verdict;” expressly provided, purpose his action and it is “for ascertaining exists, challenge whether cause of be first asked whether, in his the conclusion so will established influence his verdict. If affirmative, discharged; he answer he shall he answer in the sanction, shall be examined or under its toas how his con- action; clusion was formed to which will affect his and if it accounts, newspaper communications, reading statements, to have hearsay, or from mere rumor or states on oath that he feels able, notwithstanding an such to render the law and evidence, satisfied that he is and will render descretion, may, competent in its to serve the court, Reports. Texas 34th Criminal '[Tyler, discharged.” impartial, shall he its is not satisfied he is mid:
. that he Where the has conclusion as innocence mind, in- established in his this answer the affirmative concludes the accused *2 vestigation—constitutes finality question—and discharged. a of he should he the 2. in the further If the then be examined to test the matter. opinion If he answers that he has formed such but that will not his then he shall influence action be examined to ascer- may probably tain how his conclusion was and the extent which he be in- thereby, will, and the court in the exercise of its his fluenced determine impartial—though juror may competency, if not satisfied that he is the and have discharge so sworn—will him. Companion Opinion Formed from Evidence an- Case.—Where opinion having companion swers that he has formed an evidence in heard the (the being identical), cease, case juror, transactions the examination the should and being incompetent, discharged. should be Appeal District Court of Brazoria. Tried the below before T. Reese. Hon. S. Henry was for with murder
Appellant indicted assault intent to one punishment and at his trial was convicted and assessed Williams, years penitentiary. at a of two the 28th of the April term On the heard, appeal on to and Motion judgment came the was affirmed. for filed, disposed opinion was and below. required. of the The matter Ho statement case is discussed general and their jurors testing opinion, viz., the examination competency by the trial thus set out in defendant’s bill court, is exceptions: separately defendant and one Andrew White were indicted
“The upon Henry for a assault the witness Williams. White’s case joint juries had to one for the and 'this regular been submitted week, returned its verdict a short time before court resumed jury, having by court, was excused order allow them noon, business case was called for trial there time for dinner. When this defendant’s regular jury jury composed one This was was but attendance. L. men, completed Black, and one J. by summoning was eleven lists, as having making waived the and drawing defendant been on by jurors having Each of sworn provided statute. said following by counsel, and interrogated dire defendant’s voir Allen Walcott, M. Charley W. jurors, viz., Jones, Benedict, Chris. another, unknown defendant, whose name is answered Barbie, and of The heard trial of the case State that had the evidence and they formed an they had against White; Texas defendant, of this testimony in and trial of said as cause, Defend- require opinion. to remove that it would evidence in answer jurors cause; each for but thereupon challenged ant of said opinion that questions by jurors replied, of said court.each influenced they would formed was not a fixed opinion;' Shannon v. State. 1894.1 interro- on still thereby extent the trial any he had jurors answered, gated by each of said the case at bar without no whatever that he could doubt produced in his mind impression any influenced the trial of the State testimony already on case heard Other challenge. defendant’s v. the court overruled White, counsel, they jury replied to defendant’s upon said members White, said testimony against had the trial case heard the Defend- guilt. to this defendant’s had formed no their hav- jurors because of thereupon challenged ant’s said counsel in and trial of testimony ing having heard but in against case said White; court overruled aforesaid, each answered as of said ten of challenged counsel Defendant’s then challenges. defendant’s him by exhausting challenges allowed jurors peremptorily, said law, and he jury; Black Barbie said leaving said and said the court cause, again challenged aforesaid, said Barbie *3 to com- The court then ordered the sheriff challenge. overruled said plete required and the sheriff summoned ten panel by the as law, who, aforesaid, and examined two of jurors, additional sworn name is jurors, Henry said Mracker and whose wit, another, of they hail the trial said defendant, unknown to answ-eredthat heard White, an opinion guilt and had formed as to the of this defendant require the in and trial of said that it would White, evidence the opinion challenged to remove formed. Defendant evidence so questions each jurors by for the cause; court, said each jurors jurors of said answered as had the Chris. Jones and others. questions by were the and the same court, same asked jurors returned these in the of the Chris. Jones and jurors, as case aforesaid. court chal- others, Thereupon the overruled defendant’s lenge, required to trial with the thus go excep- excepted, which defendant and now tenders this his first bill tions, prays part that made a the record this case. same be This the that exceptions explanation, bill of with additional signed after of defendant’s counsel that the had answered the they it opinion, had formed an and that would take evidence they carefully questioned and closely remove such were each opinion, court, replied try fairly he the and each could the case as a result impartially as he had not heard the evidence aforesaid. As the jurors, entire examination of said court was the open January 23, Done they court, could so case. this “T. S. etc.” Reese, Judge, appellant. Bates and J. 8. for McJEachin, Wharton for Attorney-General, It. the State. Henry, L. Assistant 8 Eepoets. 34th Texas Cbimihal [Tyler,
OH MOTIOHFOE BEHEABIHG. Judge. Motion for several suggests herein DAVIDSON, noticed, one of which we deem should be matters consideration, of the trial court sustaining ruling that this court erred wit, who tried appellant’s juror for cause to a overruling challenges statutory question, asked the Having cause below. testimony, he and the opinion, “had an answered, of this that would trial of said require as to the cause, defendant, opinion. evidence to cause” referred remove The “said charged to was The State v. with the same testi White, offense, identical. The mony same, and transaction substance “For the trial hence heard his conclusion. White, purpose challenge exists, whether cause ascertaining first asked the conclusion estab whether, shall be affirmative, influence If he lished will his verdict. answer if he he shall be further discharged; answer by the or under its to how his conclusion examined sanction, and if action, to which it will was formed and affect reading newspaper accounts, to have been com statement, or from mere rumor munications, hearsay, notwithstanding states on oath that he feels able, and the to render an evidence, the law and will render such a ver satisfied that he is in its him as may, competent serve dict, impar court in its discretion is not that he is satisfied discharged.” provisions Such are tial, shall be 1885, Stats., (Acts p. Crim. It will 90). Willson’s sec. statute. comparing provisions with statute seen law far prior changes to the amendment of were reaching, *4 that this is the first time that a construction of the statute called the hands of this in far we are in has been formed. ability opinion: juror disregard his conclusionor
As to the law in we Eecurring regard to selection of desire jurors, proposition, is a fundamental under the Constitution say, prerequisite quali- this State, impartiality laws of that fairness are upon in fications all who are called a citizen accused of a no can in violation truth be said to be statute, fair when this idea has been in transgressed selecting such perusal It will then from a jury. be observed the statute quoted, juror qualifications when the that he whose are tested answers a conclusion has as to the innocence the accused estab- mind, will lished his such as influence his he shall be verdict, dis- observed, charged. only It will also is when he answers that further negative such examination is authorized. employed by It is we from the terms evident, think, law-making Ex Eeed. Parte 189¿.~\ concludes inves- juror from the that an affirmative answer
power, as to question his finality a constitutes his tigation, and that if the noted, respect. It will be qualifications in this opinion but will he has formed an juror answers that further ex- he shall be his verdict, not influence action object its this exam- or under sanction. amined the court, and the extent conclusion was ination to ascertain how his If it from his examina- will influence his action. which it newspaper opinion reading accounts, tion was formed from that his or from mere rumor or hear- communications, statements, able, notwithstanding that he is say, juror and the shall swear upon the law and the evidence, to render an will he is render such impartial, satisfied to serve the court its discretion impartial, though that he is its discretion is satisfied It discharged. will be further has so ob- sworn, opinion conclusion or has served, mentioned then newspaper accounts, etc., statute, reading juror. the answers of the In governed court will be some however, the formed his conclusion from none of the case, this by hearing the evidence of witnesses mentioned, given sources is, companion under case. Our construction of the statute oath opinion is formed this manner—that is, hearing when testified to—the examination of the facts the case must incompetent. pred- The former this case was cease. He is State, laid down in 30 Texas icated the rule Suit v. Criminal we Appeals, carefully reviewing question, 319. After are satisfied was erroneous. Motion for rehearing granted. our former conclusion reversed and cause remanded. Judgment
Reversed and remanded. present and Judges concurring. all Victory Parte
Ex Reed. No. Decided December Corpus Custody Recover Habeas of a Child—Jurisdiction.—A habeas parent custody corpus possession is a sued out to recover child civil Appeals, amended Act proceeding, organized Criminal Court of under the cases, object deprived jurisdiction of that amend- has of such appellate separate entirely jurisdiction in criminal from the civil ment proceedings. Appeal Hon. Tried before County Court of Bowie. below *5 County Judge. J. King, J. the case. states
No briefs on file.