Johnson v. State

Decided July 1, 1861

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1861-07-01

<p>Where the statement of facts is not approved by the judge it cannot be considered. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 1490, 3138, Notes 582, 763.)</p> <p>In an indictment for horse-stealing it is not necessary to aver that the horse stolen was of value. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2409, Note 686.)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1914

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bell, J.

¶1It is argued in the brief of the counsel of the appellant that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence.

¶2The statement of fact is not approved by the judge who presided at the trial, and for that reason cannot properly be considered by us.

¶3There seems, however, from a perusal of what appears to have been the whole of the evidence, to be no reason for supposing that the verdict was not fully warranted by the testimony.

¶4There was no error in the judgment of the court below overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

¶5It was not necessary to allege in the indictment that the horse stolen was of value. (Lopez v. The State, 20 Tex., 980.)

¶6The judgment of the court below is

¶7Aeeirmed.