Sisk v. State

Decided July 1, 1872

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1872-07-01

Tried below before the Hon. -'Charles Soward. The appellant having been found guilty, and his fine •.assessed at one dollar, his counsel moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the act of 1866, creating the offense, “is so indefinitely framed, and of such •-doubtful construction, that the same is and should be inoperative.”

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1954

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“`Upon an examination of the law we do not so consider it. The law is unmistakably plain in its meaning, and in nowise subject to the hypercriticism passed upon it by the appellant's counsel. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ex Parte Trafton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Walker, J.

¶1A somewhat novel question is presented in this record. The appellant, with one other, was indicted at the February term, 1871, charged with “rudely displaying pistols,” and was tried, found guilty, and fined.

¶2The indictment was founded on the act of October 20, 1866, which was intended to repeal and supercede Article 2012, Paschal’s Digest. It is insisted that the law is void for uncertainty and for want of completeness.

¶3Upon an examination of the law we do not so consider it. The law is unmistakably plain in its meaning, and in nowise subject to the hypercriticism passed upon it by the appellant’s counsel.

¶4The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

¶5Affirmed.