Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 383
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] THE STATE V. MCCRACKEN. 383
"open to a fair consideration of the testimony, constitute no
' objection to a juror; but those strong and deep impressions
"which will close the mind against the testimony that may be
"offered in opposition to them, which will combat the testi"mony
and resist its force, do constitute a sufficient objection
"to him." (1 Burr's Trial, 416.) When the conclusion formed
is such that it will require other and different evidence from
that on which he has confidently relied in forming such conclusion
to change it, and the evidence on which he has based it
is a report of the evidence in the case, believed by him to be
reasonably authentic and correct, it can hardly be said that he
is an impartial juror. And when upon an examination of the
juror, it was doubtful whether he was impartial or not, it
would be safer, and more in unison with the spirit of our Constitution
and laws relating to the trial by jury, to decide
against the qualification of the juror. (Moses v. The State, 10
Hunmph. Tenn. Rep., 456.)
We are of opinion that the court erred in overruling the
motion for a new trial, upon the grounds that have been referred
to, and therefore the judgment must be reversed and
the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
THE STATE V. LYCURGUS MCCRACKEN.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Section 17 of the General Provisions of the Constitution
provides: " Every law enacted by the Legislature shall em"
brace but one object, and that shall be expressed in its caption." Held
that though the provision is mandatory, yet where the caption of an act
amendatory of another misrecites the date of the act intended to be
amended, and the original act was the only one ever passed on the same
subject-matter, the mistake in date could surprise or mislead no one, and
the validity of the amending enactment was not affected thereby.
APPEAL from Gonzales. Tried below before Thomas M.
Harwood (Special Judge).
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/391/: accessed August 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .