Samiksha Jaiswal (Editor)

Saddler v. Republic

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Decided
  
1844

Majority
  
Ochiltree

Court
  
Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas

Full case name
  
Hiram Saddler v. the Republic of Texas

Citation(s)
  
Dallam 610 (1844); 1844 WL 3895 (Tex.Rep.Sup.)

Judge(s) sitting
  
John Hemphill, Robert E. B. Baylor, Patrick C. Jack, William E. Jones, William J. Jones, Richard Morris, William B. Ochiltree

Saddler v. the Republic, Dallam 610 (1844), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas which held that although more than one person must take part in an affray, at trial, one may still be convicted even if the others charged are acquitted.

Contents

Background

In the fall of 1843, the grand jury of Lamar County, Texas indicted Hiram Saddler, Thomas Doss, Joshua Dillingham and C. W. Saddler for an affray. Before trial, the prosecutor dropped charges against Dillingham, and the case went to trial against the other defendants. The jury found Hiram Saddler guilty, but acquitted the other two. Hiram Saddler appealed.

Decision

Judge William B. Ochiltree issued the opinion of the Court. He noted that Hiram Saddler claimed that he could not be convicted if the others indicted with him were acquitted, and that it took more than one individual to create an affray, that they had to fight by consent. Ochiltree dismissed this contention, noting that fighting by consent was not part of the offense, but fight in public was, although not all parties need consent to the fight to be involved. Even if the others were acquitted, the conviction against Hiram Saddler was affirmed.

References

Saddler v. Republic Wikipedia