The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-12-19

good and sufficient upon its fsce and !, a.
pears upon me trial that the evidence Of The
assent witness, for the absesee Of whose ties.
tnony a continuance is asked, is ms,
ssriAi' II IL error for the court 10 refuse 10
stAat . new trial. Hurt, ]. Reversed and
John Greenwood VS.. the State of Te..s
appeal from the district court of Parker
county. W ~''
Inc defendant was convicted of murder In
inc hrst degree and his punishment assessed
~ eonaneuent in the psnitentiary for life.
siiu irsn which judgment he appealed
Ihere are but two questions submitted for
ina consideration of the court.
l. was there error in the action of the
eour1 below in oyerruling defendants motion
Tor continuance
for new trial N"ON
l no court below did not err IN oyerrupny
tns motion for continuance, as thors !, no
clllgence shown. Its shown by the record
that the witness WAS summoned Nv mhnmna
On tue -lit Of August; that the case was
reSched on 'hs 10th, and set for the 9Th OF
september, at which time W. Nj. Burton,
ueing put upon trial (who was joiatly indicted
with apps'lAnt) and that this case was called
and set for the 18th of September, and it i,
iurther shown that the witness was not pres
ent IN court wheA the case was called Al tho
times above stated; that he was in the county
up to thu 9th of September; he should have
been attached, and as the defendont neglected
70 attach him ne was not exerting due dill.
gence.
=. Did the court err in overruling defend
ants motion for now trial.
l. Inc action of the court below in
overrulisg his motion for continuance.
z, That tho evidence fails to support the
verdict of the jury.
Inc motion for new trial was for the tes
tlmony of but one witness, the appelant
falling to use proper diligence to secure his
attendance. The courtsbelow acted cor
reeily i'll regard to said motion
AFTER careful consideration o
tho facts as disclosed by the record We are o
tne opinion that the verdict is amply sup
ported by the facts."-Hurt, j. Judgment
affirmed.
Adam Thompson VS.. The State of Texas
Appeal from the district court of Dslal
| county.
This appeal was from conviction O
murder in the frat degree, with the dealt
penalty affixed. The indictment chares, the
defendant and one Pollard with the murder
OF Joseph Shoemaker, alleged to have been
committed in Dallas county on July /, 1876.
a severance being had, the appellant WA
tried before tho Hon. Sawns Robertson
special judge appointed by the governor :,
preside OF the trial, the regular Judge bsinl
disqualified to try the case by reason of hi
being OF counsel in the case before hi.
election as judge. The counsel for the de-
iendant objected to being tried before this
special Judge, as previous to the time no wa
appointed BY the governor an agreement had
been entered into between the counsel for the
defense and the state by which Judge Banks.
dale was to preside when this case should b,
tried. But this agreement was not reduced x
writing, and 10 our minds the court did no
err In holding that the state was bound b,
what appears of record shat so important
step IN thestrial of a man on an issue involy.
lns his life, rs to the selection of spscia
Judge to preside at the trial should be left Il
the vague and uncertoin recollection of coun
sol, seems 10 us Incredible" The position O
counsel That the defendant had once befor
been tried for the same otienle, although
supported by an ingenious argument and
number of authorities is untenAbls. TIL
defendant WAS convicted before FOR lhe sam,
oifense, aad upon his own appeal this judg
ment was reversed and remanded, whicI
placed tho case in the same altitude asif
new trial had been granted the court D
low. Winkler, j. Judgmontsflirmed.