State v. Lackey

Decided July 1, 1872

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1872-07-01

Tried below before the Hon. Henry Maney. The charge in the information was playing cards in a public place. The defendant’s motion to quash, for the reasons indicated in the opinion, was sustained by the court below, and the State appealed. Defendant moved to dismiss the case in this court, because the court below, after quashing the information and the appeal taken, suffered him to give his own recognizance, without sureties.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2008

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Walker, J.

¶1A district attorney pro tern, is legally authorized to do whatever the law authorizes a district attorney to do. An affidavit on which to found an information is properly made before a district attorney. (Paschal’s Digest, Article 2871.) The affidavit need not set out the offense with that particularity and formality required in an indictment. The information charges the offense in the language of the statute, and is sufficiently explicit. If the defendant were suffered to go*359at large on his own recognizance, though it was error in the court to suffer him to do so, it is not such an error as he will be heard to complain of.

¶2The objection that the word June may be read soon, is frivolous, and will not be commented on by this court. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

¶3Reversed and remanded.