<p>1. —Indictment—Constitutional Law—Pleading-—Rehearing.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of burglary, the indictment failed to conclude with the words “against the peace and dignity of the State,’’ and contained no equivalent declaration, the same was insufficient under the Constitution, article 5, section 12. Following: Bird v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 408; however, where it was shown on motion for rehearing that the indictment was incorrectly copied in the transcript, and that the original was not defective the motion for rehearing is granted.</p> <p>2. —Same—Service of Copy of Indictment.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of burglary, the trial court refused to direct service of a copy of the indictment upon defendant when requested, the same was reversible error.</p> <p>3. —Same—Written Pleading—Two Days’ Delay.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of burglary, the defendant claimed two days to file written pleadings after being served with copy of indictment and that he had not been served with such copy, but it appeared from the record on appeal that the defendant was then under bond he was not entitled to said two days under the terms of the statute.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1925
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1I agree to the reversal of this case, because of the refusal of the trial court to direct service of a copy of the indictment upon the appellant, when requested. I believe this to be imperative, under the terms of Article 553, Vernon's C.C.P.
¶2I do not believe the court should have delayed the trial for the two days prayed for, because of the fact that appellant was then under bond, and in such case was not entitled to said two days, under the terms of Article 557, Vernon's C.C.P.
