Gammel's Rules of the Courts of Texas Page: 47 of 70
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TEXAS COURT RULES.
party excepting, the reason of his objections, which, when done in
either or both cases, may form a part of the bill of exceptions.
58. Exceptions to the admission of evidence, where the ground of
cbjection is assigned, shall be considered in reference to the objection
made to it, and the objection shall be stated in the bill of exceptions
taken to its admission or exclusion.
59. Bills of exception must state enough of the evidence, or facts
proved in the case to make intelligible the ruling of the court excepted
to in reference to the issue made by the pleadings.
60. When exceptions are made to the admission or exclusion of the
evidence on the trial before the court or before the jury, the exceptions
will be then decided, after such argument as the court may
allow, and a memorandum of the point ruled on will then be made by
the judge, if the bills of exception are not then prepared and signed,
which ordinarily should be done.
(1) Rule 54.-Exceptions to Charges of the Court, Given or Refused.
The ruling of the court in the giving, refusing or qualifying of instructions
to the jury shall be regarded as approved unless excepted to, as provided
for in Articles 1954, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974 and 2061, as amended, and
Article 1984a added, by Acts 1913, 33rd Leg., p. 113. Held, unless the
appellant shows, by bill of exceptions taken and incorporated into the
record, that such objections to the general or special charges given or
refused, were made and presented before the charge of the court was
delivered to the jury, objections to the charges, and the refusal of special
charges requested, must be disregarded on appeal. The following are
some of the decisions on the subject: Horton vs. Midland Ry. Co., 171
S. W. R., 1023; Texas Midland Ry. Co. vs. Becker, 171 S. W. R., 1024;
Moore vs. Cooper Mfg. Co., 171 S. W. R., 1034; Anderson Tannehill vs. Tannebill, 171 S. W. R., 1050;
T. Capps vs. Johnson,
174 S. W. R., 294; Galveston, H. Quannah, A.
Gulf, T. St. Louis Ry. Co. vs.
Wadsack, 166 S. W. R., 43; Ry Co. vs. Tomlinson, 169 S. W. R., 217;
Rotge vs. Simmler, 176 S. W. R., 614. The following indorsement of the
trial court held insufficient: "Approved and ordered filed as a part of the
record of this case." Quanah, A.
Horton vs. Texas Midland Ry. Co., 171 S. W. R., 1023. Held, the fact
that defendant's motion for a new trial assigned error upon the action of
the court in refusing the special charge, and the fact that the order of the
court overruling this motion was excepted to, is insufficient to bring the
ruling of the court in review. M.,
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.
Moffett, James William. Gammel's Rules of the Courts of Texas, book, 1922; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth5836/m1/47/: accessed August 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .