The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-10-16

Albert Pickels, appellant, Appes,ed FIRM
VS. County court
The State Of Texas, sp'lco. CIR gg county
j. NJ. Hurt judge, delivered opinion of tho
courts
/. The appellant who WAS convicted Of
threatening to take the life of r. NJ Hol-
croft, had been tried and acquitted under an
indictment chsrginy him with threatening to
take the life of Henry HoIeryft, ard plead
such Gcquttal in bar to this information
Held that the court below did not err in
striking out this special plea upon motion of
county attorney.
, The rule in cases of this kind is 'Phat y
former trial is no. bar ua!ess tho first in
dictment was such that the prisoner might
have been convicted upon proof of the facts
set forth in the second indictmant"
1.-THE slecial plea presents legal defense
to the Indictment, it is the duty OF the court
to submit both the special. and the plea Of
not guilty to jury, at same time with instruc-
tions to frs consider the special plea, and if
they find that TO be true proceed no further
than to return their verdict thereon. Il Tex
as, p 49l, Affirmed,
Henry Ross, appellant, ! Appeal from the
VS.. County Court OF
The State of Texas, aprc Smith county.
Z. NJ. Winkler, judge, ualiyerel tho oplu-
ion of the court.
|. 1t is part of the law in overy case
where conviction is depenlent solely upon
crcumstantial evidence, tLat the jury trying
it shall be prop 4rly Informed as to the ma
ture and character of the testimony in order
to u convi2tion upol it, and failure Of
judge to give such charge is cause for rover-
sal. Strickman vs. state, ct, app 6Sl The
omission is not cured by II charge on reas-
enable doubt. Hunt vs. state. ct, app 2l2
. In misdemesnOr cases the court need
not give o written charge unless requested
by one of tho parties but in felony cases it
Is the duty OF the court to give q charge in
wrltlg, whether requested or not, and y
failure so to do is error, Hobbs vs. state, 7
ct, app 2l7, and code, Grim prac art ca aud
GSl. For failure to give Charge upon cir,
cumsIantial evidence the judgmen! is rever-
sed.
Albert S!otum, applet, Appeal from the
VS. County court of
The State of Texas. Smith County.
Hurt, Judge, delivered the opinion of the
court
l. An allegation describing bill or note,
as UNITED States currency note, Of value
o. five dollars, commonly called agreenback
bill, " is not sustained by proof that the sto-
len bill was "a five dollar bill of he.valuo of
five dollars" and the variance is fatal.
.. 1t IS not error for the court to refuse to
charge that if the money was lost by the
owner, and the defendant did not know who
lost it, the jury must acquit," in case
where defendant knew, or had reasonable
grounds to believe, that there was IN owner
to whom he could have delivered the prop
erty, and so knowing, intended TO deprive
the owner of its value and appropriate it to
his own use Reversed aud remanded.
JaIes Rowland, aplnt, Appeal from the
vs.. County Court OF
The State of Texas, a'pJ Gregg county.
Winkler, Judge, delivered tho opinion of
the court;
|. Adultery either by tho husband or wife
ia an otfense against tho other within the
meaning of the statue, and in prosecution
for the oitnse the state is entitled to the
ben, fl of the testimony Of the it jured par
ty, Morrell VS. state, ct app Az. Judg,
ment affirmed.
Kate Jacobs, appellant, ! Appeal from the
vs. County Cont of
The Stato of Texas, apl'e Gregg county.
White, presiding judge, delivered the
opinion Of the court.
|. Held that article 3,0i2 of the revised
statutes. cnumera,ing tho persons disqualified
TO sit rs jurors Ia particular cases, is in har.
moBy with article G3G of tho code Of crlmin-
al procedure, and applies Ms well in crimudl
as well "a in civil tr4s; therefore it was not
error in the court below III ruling that jury
who had set in trial of cas-, involving
tho same facts AS tho ono under consii1ra-
ton, were di,Quslidsd to sit. Du.n vs. state,
: ctapp 600. Affirmed.
Bob Blocker, appellant Appealed from
vs.. District Court OF
The State of Texas, APPLE J McLeanan county
White, PRECEDING Judge delivered the opin-
ion Of the court:
|, The following charge held error: "Un.
less all the material facts proven to your sat
slaclion lead to and establish the nonclus ion