The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1876-02-10
Sup emo Court.
HON. GEO. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL.

HON. GEO. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The following cases have been decidet
at Galveston, since January 1, 1875:
January -, 1S76-554. Joe Jordan v
State, Wharton county. reversed.
January %, 1S76--574. State V. Luciel
W hitehead, Lavaca county, dismissed 4e4
+. VI. Deaton v. State, Trinity county, II,
versed. 499. State v. r. H. Smith, Or
ange county, affirmed. 522 W. c. Wof
fard v. State, McLeunan county, reversed
552. Ez Pdrte B. F. Coopwo ODD, Bexal
county, dismissed.
January 26, 1s76-5OO. State v. Riley
Willard, Jefferson county, dismissed.
January %, 1S76-490 Arch. Perry V.
State, Matagorda county, reversed. 529
Geo. Blackburn v. State, Victoria county.
reversed. 531. Marsda s. Ortise V. State,
Victoria county, reversed. 532. Anderson
Prince v. State, Victoria county, reformed
$50. j. p. Beck v. State, Dewitt county,
reversed.
72. Evidence-Where a witness over the
objection of a defendant is permitted to
testify to an additional important fact, ma
terial and pertinentto the issue, when his
evidence is illegal and lnadmissible, the
Court, however certainly it might conclude
that the defendant would have been found
guilty upon the other sufficient evidence,
will reverse the case. Opinion by Rob
erts, Chief Justice, November &c, 1875.
William Ne Williams Q. the State.
73. Evi ience- -Accomplice-At Attorney
An accomplice, while prisoner, made, with
view of securing his release, certain state
ments to his own attorney, upon the strength
of which he was allowed by the district
attorney to become a witness for the State ;
upon the trial, failing to state all that he
had stated to his attorney, the attorney,
with his consent, took the witness stand
for the State, and testified, over the objec-
tiens of the defendant, to certain statements
made to him Dy the accomplice; held, upon
no principle whatever, and for no legal
purpose that can he imagined, can so extra
ordinary a departure from the plain rules of
evidence in II criminal trial be tolerated d.
IA. Evidence Accomplice - 1t is not
enough that the evidence of an accomplice
be corroborated by other testimony as to
one. of several parties charged with the
offensf. The confirmation should be ''in
some fact which goes to fix the guilt of the
particular person. on trial. QP. D., Art.
311S.) Opinion by Gould, Justice, Novem-
Der 26, 1875. Julia Coleman o. The State.
rs. Evidence-Accomplic plice-The rule of
law laid down in l p, Art. 311S is positive
and peremptory, and however much a jury
may be disposed to credit the accomplice,
the defendant cannot legally be convicted
unless the evidence of the accomplice be
confirmed in some material matter tending
to show the defendants guilt. 3D.
76. County Courts - Neglect of Duty =
Recognizance = Defendants were indicted
under act of March 8, 1873, g p, Art $3.50,
h. h.) for neglecting to publish expendi-
lures, assets and Indebtedness of county
In the recognizances of two of the defend
ants, the offense was described as .'not pub
fishing a quarterly report" and in the other
for mot publishing report" Held, that
the recognizances were insufficient, and that
under the act of April %, 1871, e P, Arts.
6599, 6600) which declares that 1.-THE Su-
preme Court shall not entertain jurisdiction
of any case requiring recOgniZance that
does not substantially comply with the form
therein prescribed, :" the appeal must be dis
missed. Opinion by Reeves, Justice, No
vember 26, 1875. r. s. Hanpey ct al. o.
Tile State.
n. Evidence - Accomplice - Charge -
The rule established by the code is in ac-
cordance with what is the practice of courts
generally, and forbids conviction on the
testimony of an accomplice unless corrobo-
rated by other evidence tending to connect
the defendant with the offense committed,
and this connection, it has been held, must
be material matter Brnton v. The State,
81 Texas, 348). 1t is immaterial that two
or more accomplices testify. Their testimony
must be corroborated as r, ,quIred by law
(Arch. c. P, p. 15D. A charge to the
effect that one jointly indicted is an accom-.
plice is too general; there may be cases in
which person jointly indicted may not be
in fact an accomplice. The case of Barre
rea v. The State. decided at the Galveston
Term of 1875, referred to and explained.
Opinion by Gould, Justice, November 26,
1875. James Roberts o. The State.
78. Medjcine-Illegally Practlcing-In-
dictment-An indictment under the Act Of
sixteenth of May, 1873, e P, Arts. $3.50,
7200) which charges that the defen-
dent ''did then and there unlawfully en-
gage in the practice of medicine
without first having obtained certificate
of qualification from the Board of Medical
Examiners of Wood county," is fatally de-
fective. The statute foroids any one from
engaging in practice s'without having a GER
tificate of qualification from some authorized
board of medical examiners, as Hereinafter
qualifications are not sufficiently broad to
meet the requirements of the statute. To
harmonic the charge in the indictment with
this section of the statute, it must be shown
that before physician who has no diploma
can practice in any county in the State, he
must obtain certificate from the Medical
Board of that county, or if board has not
been organized in it, then from the nearest
medical board of such county. But this is
plainly at variance with the whole tenor
and import of the law. The certificate is
evidence of qualification, like d diploma,
throughout the State. Opinion by Moore
Justice, November %, 1875. DR.. Goldman
o. State.
70. Acknowledgements was convicted
of misdemeanor, and judgment of fine rem
dered against him in the District Court
from which he appealed to the Supreme
Court. Pending the appeal. he died. Hello
that the suit abated, and the appeal would
be dismissed. Opinion by Reeves, Justice,
(November 26, 1850 j. II. Green o. Stdte
80. -Charge-Whileit it may be ques
toned whether part of the charge did mo-
overlook the distinction between possession
and custody @ Bish. G. L., secs. S24. $50,
$50; Ros Cr. Ev., 500; P, Art 1885,
still, If the court erred, and it is apparent
that tine error was in favor of the defendant,
he cannot complain. Opinion by Gould
Justice, December 3, 1879 Eugenia Gar
eia e. State.
81. Evidence, Admission of-Where i
appears to the court below to be necessary
to due administration of justice, testimo
ny may be introduced at any time before the
argument of a cause is concluded q p,
Art. 3046); but where the object of suct
testimony is to impeach the credit of a wit
ness, whose evidence is fully supported by
other witnesses, and there is no reason tC
believe that the testimony, SO sought to be
introduced, would materially change the
state of the case favorsbly for the defen
dant, it is not error to reject it. Opinion
by Roberts, Chief Justice, December 3
1879 Joseph Harris .. State.
81. lDdictment-In an indictment under
Art 2344. p, the act must be charged tC
have been done ''ssillf1ly" The word
4. II = =. n