The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-03-24
synopsis
CT ID scisiona of the Court Of Appeals.

~ ~'NtHtUhh vs. seN N''s"' ~ - fh''''''
-----------
Reported for the Galveston News by o, s,
Eaton, OF the Galvsst' N NaT'l
.James Frazier vs.. State. Appeal from
FrankIin. Oninion BY Winkler, j. Con.
viction for ,hoft of n marc; punishment.
q. aaven vcars ;mnrisonment. IL seems that the
Stato made second effort before a conyic.
lion was obtained The following document
annroyed by the Judge and ordered filed ns
a part Of tho record, Is set as a statement of
farts "lhe bill of indictment, No. 0G,
charosd theft If n bav mare. the proparty Of
w. Il Graham. on the 9th dny of August
1877 and with eycontion of n difference in
dissertation IA to color. the present indict-
,nent and hin In case No 0G ore tho same in
snhslsuoe pef,uunnt WA, out ON trial under
the bill in case No. og. and The witness Ora
. han, called 70 testify when he stated that tina
animal charged TO have been stolen WAS "A
i;ght brown when the District Attorney
reonestod tbe court To hermit him 10 ont,r n
nolIe nroscoui. which VIVA done over objection
of defandant. ]. j. Gregg, witness Tor de.
foodant said. Il have known Graham's
, ro sor sawaro, reors ohe ia n Grbt hroun
marc "a l;gbted in tbe shin when sbo sheds.
ah"n, ha 20 h;ns abn rosonhlos a dorE hny.
oa JJ' har y III; ,bt hrown' Annrovod y. -
s,a,onaon, ~ fsn,s and ordnred dlcd ma a nor,
s Nc ~ 49, y, - ~, Ia on,,so n ~ No.
u sno ,S ~ ~ T;6L ,'Sa;oI a;a,.;ai a.
Wan5ar 10 1870 n = ya,os nioirin,
C,or ~ X From tbo "hnve s,a,e'
49, ~ c.oto NV uhotoaor Il ia ths nro,,G, ,f
ons y, i,i , W ~, "ro na 1 W., go, ao W
ano " d,or 49, of "cnmo Reyorso5 and
nv, utLI P'''' ''''' '"u
ioiA nIs S,o,o Annoo, rron, Nolan
~ 49, i',, uh;taPfp I' tho ,,,n
nun nun op nn, t,;s threo aavor,l orrors n arn
soh ,oi nuT ', ,ha on,,~ !" ,,ano, a a'o
Pc'n.o' ous =" 'up p e pvn nt as ~
vi .pU podsj,' ~ eno a au'O ~ sna ", 'Iu
mae, usea III tareo 1et ho pn"s'"pnS ,L ~
the cnaiSo Conisei nave Ivy asuVu 'iio
case nor h'eu or'ols' anu we a'e Wv W con
lecture, ~ measure, .no iu., .proo Vi tpo
supposed error, Tue sta!eneht III .he motloh
ior new tri"l peins i'lil'eu ny SIMPLY assert !,
ing the error 10 DO III tne language quoted; II
correct IN our cohleCsure' .heopJecu9h is thet
the charge Is nov suiiicISntiy iui! ana explicit
IN stating posinVely 70 inc WY 'ha' 10 con
stltute rape 10. W. 20 not th'hk
the ooleouons, Wen iak Ken wnoh inc context
or wno'e Oh ei'he' VI tno seVorn paragraphs
~ rp,
staIu1e oennes rape ars o4o'l Inc
chaiee VI 'ho ~ u'?s VIC eHp a',. S
MAJ Nno~teus' a . ~ 'nT uoAu' MN VI wy
eode 10 GuaiAS'eilA1 y luz ono'lse. ne "orus
carnai hlowNuse' naNo =" u',"n'ns "s wei
unuels'ouu IN Cuini.,In "eeep'"son "s a,s
9ther Ordinary 'Apiessiou:, ailu "no sonsoI.l,
pie OF iu'ercn"'se"o'o WIN Wv mo'f'S s,H"n
lntercoutSe rs uSe 900 =" our snsu"So nchl1II
VS. state, 90 ca, QUO W. are ol oPh9t
that the onilu Saran McDee uispiayeu SUN
Gent intelligence to testify as 10 inc trans =,
ton, ana that tne cour1 mas hoI ABUSED the
discretion conferred Oy Jaw IN permitting hei
to testify. Brown VS. State' = lex ~ app
ITO; Id, lex ~ app, zoo ahe VS. o'a'e'
Tex Vt App o9o'I Inc apphca.ioh Tor con
tnuance was properly, ovcrrulcu oecause o
the inadmissib,llty OF tEe desired evidence anc
for want OF diligence noptain me testimony
and for want of complanco WIN the sixth
subdivision OF article ooo OF Code Cfmlna
Procedure: Affirmed.
George Doran VS. state. Appeal from Ma
varro. Opinion by Clark,J. This is thu
second appeal prosecuted IN THIS case, thu
same having been formerly reversed. Dor
an vs. state, I Ut Appeal, $50 Another tria
was had in conformity with the opinion cited
with the same verdict as before, No erroI
appears from the record, after careful oxami.
nation of the numerous assignments of erro
incorpor, ted in the transcript Tho charg,
of tho cour, is full and correct exposition
of the law; the verdict is fully supported b,
the evidence, and is correct in form, and clear
ly shows finding of guilty for the oflense o
murder in the first degree, with assignment
of a legal penalty for that otfense. No error
either OF substantial or formal nature, ap
pc~r' 70 ~ record. Affirmed