Fox v. State

<p>1. —Murder—Continuance—Immaterial Testimony.</p> <p>Where defendant’s application did not show the materiality of the alleged . absent testimony, with reference to an alibi of a party whom the State did not claim was at the homicide, there was no error in overruling same.</p> <p>2. —Same—Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>Where the court below states that the allegations of the hill of exceptions are wholly incorrect, the matter presents no error.-</p> <p>3. —Same—Evidence—Insult to Female Relative.</p> <p>Where, upon a trial of murder and conviction of manslaughter, the de- ■ fendant claimed insult to his wife hy the deceased, there was no error in permitting the State to show that the general reputation of defendant’s wife for virtue and chastity was bad in the community in which he lived. Art. 1134, Penal Code.</p> <p>4. —Same—^Evidence—General Reputation.</p> <p>Where defendant’s witnesses testified that his reputation for truth and veracity was good and that they had never heard his reputation' questioned, there was no error in permitting the State to show that defendant’s veracity was questioned by witnesses in a certain damage suit.</p> <p>5. —Same—Evidence—Beading Questions.</p> <p>While the State should not have been permitted to ask leading questions, yet where the evidence was, nevertheless, admissible and was not very material, the matter presents no reversible error.</p> <p>6. —Same—Evidence—Ill-will of Deceased.</p> <p>Where defendant testified that deceased, while deputy sheriff, had refused to approve a certain bond, which defendant presented to him, to show the ill-will of deceased, there was no error to permit the State, on cross-examination, to show that deceased refused to receive the bond because it was insufficient.</p> <p>7. —Same—Charge of Court—Going Armed—Explanation.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, there was testimony that the deceased had made insulting remarks about defendant’s wife; that thereupon, defendant armed himself and went in search of deceased to demand an explanation of him; that the latter gave him no opportunity, but reached for his pistol, when defendant shot and killed him, there was no error in the court’s failure to submit this matter to the jury, the court having given a full and fair charge on self-defense without any limitation. Following Williford v. State, 38 Texas Grim Rep., 303, and other cases.</p> <p>8. —Same—Charge as a Whole—Self-defense—Serious Bodily Injury.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder and a conviction of manslaughter, the court gave a full and fair charge on self-defense, when considered as a whole, criticisms of phrases in the charge, and that the court omitted to present serious bodily injury as a ground of self-defense, were untenable, and there was no error.</p> <p>9. —Same—Presumption—Deadly Weapon.</p> <p>Where the 'defendant testified that deceased not only reached for his pistol, but got it and dropped it, the court did not err in charging on presumption arising from the use of a weapon.</p> <p>10. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon a trial of murder and a conviction of manslaughter, the evidence sustained the conviction, under a proper charge of the court, there was no error.</p>