The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1878-04-25
Synopses ofthe DecisiO ms of the Court
of Appeals-RendeTed at the A ustin
Term, 1878.

No. 772-August Hoerr v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Dallas. Opin-
ion by Winkler, ].
Held, That prosecutions on informs-
ton in the county court require both
an information and an affidavit
(Laws 1876, p. 90, Sec. 81, which
should both describe the same offense,
at least substantially, and any material
variance between the affidavit and the
information in the description of the
offense will be fatal.
Reversed and dismissed. .
April II, 1878.
No. 24S-J. E. Bryan v. The State of
Texas; appeal from Lamar. Opinion
by Winkler, j.
This is an appeal from final a judg-
ment on a forfeited bail bond. Held,
That in such case when the forfeiture
appears to have been regular and all
other proceedings had with a due re-
gard to the demands of the law, and
the appellant has failed in the court
below to show cause why the judg-
ment should not be made final, this
court will not disturb the judgment
rendered.
Judgment affirmed.
April II, 1878.
No. 650-Thomas Witten v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Tarrant.
Opinion by White, j.
Held, That bad or awk ward writing,
where the sense is apparent and where
the defendant cannot be misled by it,
does not vitiate an indictment, the
same being true of bad spelling.
Judgment affirmed.
April II, 1873.
No. 664-William Bennett v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Grayson.
Opinion by White, ].
Held, That tie interest of county
Judge in his fees, contingent on the
conviction of defendant, is not such
dlsqualifying interest as, under arti-
Gle 5, section 2 of the Constitution,
would prevent him from sitting in the
trial of the cause. (Const., art. 5, sec.
10; Laws of 1876, PIP. 265-2S6.)
Judgment affirmed.
April II, 1878.
No. 254-G. A. r. Price v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Lamar. Opin-
ion by Winkler, j.
Held, That, in the trial of scire
facias against the sureties upon for
feited bail-bond, where the testimoy
discloses that it was impossible by
reason of sickness, or from other
cause, for the principal to appear at
the regular term and avoid forfeiture
OF his Oond, it is error for the court to
make the judgment nisi inal against
them. Also, that when such sppear-
ance was prevented by sickness of &C
cused it Is error to admit, in evidence
of that fact, physlcian's certificate.
Reversed and remanded.
April IL, 1873.
No. 761-Amos Dorm '. The State Of
Texas; appeal from Lamar. opin-
ion by White, ].
HID, That defendant, charged IN
der the statute (Acts Thirteenth Leg.
p. 43, amendAtory of Grim Code, 2s4,
P. D., 1900 with disturbing coDgJe-
gatien assembled for religious worship,
cannot be allowed to introduce testi-
mony in his defense to show that the
congregation alleged to have been dis
turbed were themselves trespassers
upon the rights of third parties and
therefore conducting themselves In an
unlawful manner.
Reversed and remanded.
April II, 1873.
No. 7S4-Houston and Texas Central
Railroad Company v. /. A Park ;
error from Ellis. Opinion By EctoE,
P.J.
HID, /. That where q railroad OF
other common carrier receives goods 20
be carried to = certain destination. 10
reach which they must pass ever the