The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1878-04-18

| with the person whose the property
was alleged to be Good V. The State,
Texas c. A. R., 520).
2. Held, that it is sufficient In an in
dictment for stealing money tc describe
the kind of money alleged 20 have been
stolen, whether gold coin or United
States currency notes or United States
national bank notes, and to state the
denomination and value of each piece
in plain and ineligible language, en-
ploying words in common use and the
meaning Of which is understood by all.
Lawrence V. The State, Texas g. A.
r., 6S5; Ridgeway V. The State, IL
Texas, 231; Wharf. Am. Grim. Law,
Sec. 363. For insufficient description
see Martinez Y. The State, Al Texas,
164; Boyle v. The State, 81 Texas, $780,
3. 1t was proven that the defendant
induced a person to 90 to place in
order to have him robbed by an ac-
complice, and afterwards received a
part of the stolen property. Held, that
1t was not error for the court to hold
In the charge to the jury such defend
it error for the court to refuse to charge
the jury as to the law of receiving
stolen property.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 25G-The State of Texas v. Chas.
Morgan; appeal from Fsnnin. Opin-
ion by White, ].
This is an appeal on behalf of the
State from judgment of the district
court setting aside judgment nisi and
quashlng the appearance bond upon
forfeiture of which the same was rem
dered. Held, that Scire .Jdcids cases
are criminal cases, and that, therefore,
the appeal must be dismissed, the Con-
stltutiOn (Const., Art. 5, Sec. 26) pro-
viding expressly that ''the State shall
have no right of appeal in criminal
cases."
Appeal dismissed.
No. 594-HenrY Williams v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Lamar.
Opinion by White, J.
Appellant was indicted and con-
victed for an aggravated assault and
battery. No testimony appears to have
been adduced going to show in what
county and State the offense was COM
mitted. Held, That no name having
been proven, the judgment must be re-
versed and the case remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
No. 247-The State of Texas V. Nancy
J. Dickerson, j. ]. Cothran, M. E.
Cothran and G.. w. Wells; appeal
from Lamar. Opinion by Ector,
p
In this case the bond upon which the
| Judgment niSt was rendered was
quashed and the cause dismissed by
the lower court, to which ruling the
State excepted and gave notice of APP
peal. Held, That q Scire .tdcids on
forfeited bail bond or recognizance is
criminal case, and that no appeal be-
ing allowed the State in any criminal
case, the appeal must be dismissed.
| (Const. Art. 5, Sec. 2G.)
| Appeal dismissed.
No. 666-J. D. Crawford v. The State
of Texas; appeal from Grayson.
Opinion by White, ].
Held, That 1t is not necessary for
the court acting instead of jury TO
say that the matters contained in a
defendants special plea in bar are true
or untrue. Taylor v. The State, de-
cided in this court at present Austin
term; Campbell v. The State, 2 Tex.
G. A. r., 1879 In jury trials the jury
should say that such pleas are true or
untrue. (P. D., 3091; Denton Y. The
State, Al Tex, 446.)
Judgment affirmed.
No. 670-H. Bassett v. The State of
Texas; appeal from Grayson. Opin-
ion by White, j.
Appellant was indicted as II. Bassett,
for mlsdemeanor, but the testimony
disclosed his true name to be Charles
Bassett, it being developed, however,
that he was the person intended by the
grand jury. Appellant seeks q reyer-
sal on the ground of the variance be-
tween the allegation In the Indictment
and the proof, contending that Arts.
2937 and 293S of Paschal's Digest re-
late to capital felonies and felonies less
than capital, and are not applicable to
misdemeanors Held, That the prac-
tice in cases of felony and of misde-
meanor is the same; that when the de-
fendant is arraigned and his name as
stated in the indictment distinctly
called, unless he suggests by himself
or counsel that he is not indicted by
his true name, it shall be taken that
his name is truly set forth, and he shall
not thereafter be allowed to deny the
same by way of defense. CThe court
cited 1 Bish. Grim. Proceed, % Ed,
| 677; also 2 Hale, p. c., 23S; Chitty
q. L. ,202, as to the practice at common
law. That under the provisions of the
Texas Stat. P. D., 2493, the com
mon law rules apply when the code
fails to provide rule of procedure IN
any particular state of case as in this
instance that the rule of procedure (P.
D., 1887, in felony cases has already
been held by this court to apply in
cases of misdemeanor Foster v. The
State, Tex. c. A. R., 531.)
Judgment affirmed.
No. 707-James Lee v. The State oi
Texas; appeal from Lamar. Opin.
ion by White, ].
Where the evidence is such as fully
to sustain the verdict, and the jury il
properly charged by the court as tt
the law of the case, this court will mo-
disturb the verdict of jury.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 644-Kate Lowe v. The State o.
Texas; appeal from Parker. Opin
ion by White, ].
1. Appellant was indicted for keep
ing disorderly house, the indictment
alleging "* that on, etc., Kat,
Lowe did keep house for the purposl
of public prostitution and as common
resort for prostitutes and vagabonds
and which was then and there dis
|; orderly house, etc. Appellant moveC
to quash the indictment because tht
offense was not properly described
Held, That under the statute (P. D..
2027) and the many decisions hereto
fore rendered by the Supreme Cour
and this court, the ale cations in thu
indictment are amply sufficient Il
charge the offense of keeping q dis,
orderly house. ada Thompson v
The State, 1 Tex, G. A. R., 56
Thompson ". The State, 2 Id, 50
: Brown v. The State, Id, 1S9; Kill
man v. The State, 2 Id, 222; Sylves
ter v. The State, AZ Tex, 496; Cor
Morris v. The State, 3s Tex, 603.)
2. Appellant on her trial below
pleaded former acquittal, the facts be.
1 4.