Compton v. State (67 Tex. Crim. 15, 1912)

PRENDERGAST, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of robbery and given the lowest penalty, five years in the penitentiary.

The charging part of the indictment is as follows: “That C. B. Compton, in said county and State, on or about the 7th day of October, in the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and eleven, and before the presentment of this indictment, did then and there, unlawfully and wilfully make an assault upon the person of Bufus Biley, and Bob Jamison, and did then and there by said assault and by said violence to the said Bufus Biley and the said Bob Jamison, and by putting the said Bufus Biley and the said Bob Jamison, in fear of life and bodily injury, did then and there fraudulently take from the person and possession and without the consent, and against the will of each of them, the said Bufus Biley and the said Bob Jamison, the property so taken from the said Bufus Biley as hereinbefore stated, being as follows, to wit, one silver dollar of the value of one dollar, two pocket knives, of the value of one dollar each, and 'one coat, of the value of ten dollars, the property so taken as hereinbefore stated from the said Bob Jamison being as follows, to wit, silver coin of the value of one dollar and fifty cents, said property as hereinbefore described then and there being the corporeal personal property of the said Bufus Biley and the said Bob Jamison respectfully and as hereinbefore alleged, with the fraudulent intent.then ánd there of him, the said C. B. Compton, to deprive the said Bufus Biley and the said Bob Jamison, respectfully, and as hereinbefore alleged, of the' value of said property and to appropriate the same to the use and benefit of him, the said C. B. Compton.”

Appellant made no motion in the court below to quash the indictment on any ground. All the questions he raises are raised by motion for new trial. There is no bill of exceptions other than a bill to the overruling of his motion for new trial. The motion for new trial presents several separate and distinct grounds therefor. Under such circumstances we can not treat it as a bill of exceptions, but must review the questions as raised by the motion for new trial. Appellant was not represented by an attorney until after his conviction.

In the latter part of the indictment it is perfectly apparently that where it charges, being the property “of the said Bufus Biley and the said Bob Jamison respectfully,” and then later “to deprive the said Bufus Biley and the said Bob Jamison respectfully” that the word “respectively