The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-05-06

der Indictment, who, having been denied bal
In the first instance, and being subsequently
tried and convicted Of bailable ofiense
should prosecute appeals to this court and Sc
cure reversals. The writ is granted and made
returnable before the Judge Of the District
court. Opinion by Clark, j.
Joseph Reid vs. the State. Appeal from
Ellis county. This prosecution was by in
dictment for malicious mischief, and was
based upon Article $50, p. q. The indict-
ment charges that defendant "unlawfully,
willfully and wantonly did then and there
wound and kill certain mule. On the
trial the two State witnesses testified that the
"mule was still living and doing work every
day." Held, that the evidence did not sup
port the indictment in its most material ale
cations, and the case is reversed and re-
manded. Opinion by White, p. j.
w. Simcoe vs.. the State. Appeal from
Tarrant county. Under the old code n de-
PENDANT could not be convicted of embezzle-
ment upon m indictment for theft. The
rule is different under the new code Re-
yersed and remauded. Clark, j.
NJ. Angel vs.. the State. Appeal from Dali
las county Two cases In these cases the
defendant being tried for theft of horses, the
State was permitted to prove, over objection,
that.after defendant was arrested and carried
to the iailers Office, upon the suggestion of
the Deputy Sheriff that there was no use to
deny the crime, rs there was sutliC lent evil
dence to convict him, he confessed the theft.
1t is not made to appear that this statement
came within any of the exceptions to the
general rule which rigidly excludes such evil
dence, and the admission OF the evidence was
error. Reversed and remanded. Clark, d..
Jake Grant vs.. the State. Appeal from
TuTrant county. The defendant was con-
vcted of n mlsdemeanor, and entered into II
recognizance for appeal. AT subsequent
term of the court the recogniaance was, on
motion of the defendant, and without notice
to the sureties, appended so as to conform to
the form then prescribed by statute. Held,
that the court had no authority to amend the
recogni2ance in this manner and the recog-
niZance rs originally entered, not describing
the otleDse of which defendant was charged,
the appeal is dismissed. Clark, j.
N. G. Cargil We. the State. Appeal from
Wise county. Appellant was convicted for
the ollense OF false imprisonment, the proof
showing that he had arrested u party for be-
ing drunk, in the city Of Decatur, he being
marshal of that place. Some Of the friends
of the arrested party offered TO procl.e bail
il the marshal would furnish blank form of
bond. The marshal refused. The bylaws
of the city impose upon the mayor the duty
of taking and approving the bond of party
arrested for violation of the city ordinances.
Held that in this case the bond should have
been rendered TO the mayor and pot the mar
shul, and the latter officer cannot be held La
BILE for the false imprisonment. Reversed
and remanded. Clark, j.
Morris Lindley Vi. the State, Appeal from
Tarrant county. Where the evidence is
purely circumstantial, it is necessary for the
Judge to give an appropriate charge to the
jury rs to the nature of the proof required in
such cases, and failure to do so will require
a reversal of the case. The char of the
court also failed TO instruct the jury that in
order to convict the defendant of theft, they
must believe that the p operty was taken
without the owners consent. Reversed and
Opinion by Winkler, }.
J. w. Shields VS. the State. Appeal from
Ellis county. The defendant having asked
that the witnesses be placed under the rule,
the principal witness for the State was first
placed upon the stand and, after testltyng,
was allowed to remain in the courtroom
while the other witnesses were examined.
Held, that ms it appears that this witness was
not again placed upon the stand this was not
error That one Of the jurors had heard
portion of the evidence taken on an exam
lining trial tit not being shown that NJ the
time he was taken ms a juror he had any con-
victlon as to the guilt or innocence of the
accused) did not render him an incompetent
Juror. Affirmed, Winkler, j,
Ellie Wilson VS.. the State. Appeal from
Clay county. In passing upon an applica
ton for continuance this court will look to
the statement of facts in the record to deter
mine the materially of the evidence sought
to DO obtained by postpo0ement of the
trial. 1t was no. error to prove the state
mcnts Of the defendant made in the trial of
another cause, in regard to the ownership of
the house, which in the indictment is charged
to be a disorderly house. Affirmed. Wink
Ter j.
Parker II Go. VS.. Bonner. Cornish Il Co.
Appeal from McLenuan county. \ mort.
gage has no such interest in mortgaged prop
erty as can be asserted by claim under the
statute providing for the trial of the right of
A mortgage is but security, the
title remaining IN the mortgagor until
dlvested by foreclosure. Reversed and re-
manded. White, P.J.
4---.