Hartless v. State
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Lindsay
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
- State
- Texas
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Dissenting opinion arguing that summary judgment for the employer River Authority was proper because the plaintiff Duke was not actually discharged, did not refuse to perform an illegal act, and could not establish the narrow Sabine Pilot exception to Texas employment-at-will doctrine.
Excerpt
Appeal from Cherokee. Tried below before tlie Hon. Samuel L. Earle. The appellant and one Henry Mitchell were jointly indicted at the Fall term (1868) of the District Court of Cherokee County, for the murder of W. E. Hartless, the husband of the appellant. The death was charged to have been inflicted with a stick and a pocket-knife. At the same term the accused appeared,' pleaded not guilty and obtained a severance. The trial of the appellant ensued, and. she was convicted of murder in the second degree, and her punishment assessed by the jury at ten years’ confinement in the penitentiary, with hard labor. A new trial being refused, the defendant appealed. The first error assigned was the admission of “ testimony as to the habits, disposition and character of the defendant, as pointed out in her bill of exceptions.” It was in proof that the deceased and the appellant .had been married about fourteen years, and had lived amicably together until some two years previous to the homicide; at which time the deceased “put up a still, and commenced making whisky and brandy.” The witness for the State, being under his examination in chief, proceeded to state: “ Deceased then took to drinking, and the fussing began. I have frequently heard the accused hallooing and screaming as if in distress, since the still was put up; and it became such a common thing to hear her, that it was regarded as a nuisance to the neighborhood. We could tell whenever deceased had made a ‘ run ’ of the still, by the hallooing of the accused. I don’t know what made accused make this noise; don’t know which was to blame for it, she or deceased. Know that deceased was frequently drunk, and accused may have been too. I have seen accused drink whisky, but never saw her intoxicated.” By the defendant’s bill.of exceptions, it appears that this testimony went to the jury over her objection, and before she had put her character, habits or disposition in issue. The second
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.