The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-06-07
Synopsis of Opinions OF the Court
OF Appeals.


Il. M. Pharr VS. the state; from johnson
county. Declarations made by defendant
in his own favor are not admissible in his
behalf unless part of the res gestae, or Of a
confession offered by the prosecution, or un>
less coming within the rule that when part
Of an act, declarations, etc., is given evidence
the whole may be required. Declarations #
defendant in his.favor made aday after muir.
der Of which he is accused, and many miles
distant from the scane, are no! part of the res
gestae. Charge that Xxx defendant has been
acquitted of murder in the first degree and
therefore there is no necessity for explaining
to you the difference between the two do
grees Of malice" is not obnoxious TO art 1888
Of the G y. p. NJ form Of words has be, n
prescribed for charge on circumstantial
evidences, and the trial Judge is simply re-
CURED to give charge ample to ins ruct
the jury,,ss to its sufiiciency q ID copcuvineis.
White, p. j.
John Hsiles VS. the state; from Lsmpas-
IS county. The description of the animal
alleged to have been stolen being the issue,
which the description was given by tie de-
fendsnt, the bill of sale WAS not the best
evidence of the description of the animal,
and oral testi nony thereon was competent
Application for continuance shows that the
absent witnesses reside in county other
than that in which the prosecution was had
and that the subpoenas were not placed ia
the hands of on officer of the county
Of their residence, shows total want
Of diligence. Affirmed, White, j.
WA Hunt vs. the state; from Bell county.
The rule is imperative and absolute that
unless the record d scloses alirmstively that
the defendant pleaded 10 the indictment, or
In default, that the plea Of mot guilty" was
entered for him by the court, conviction
cannot stand. Reversed and remand ed.
White, P.J.
Sam Willis VS. the state; from Williamson,
II the Trial court in misdemeanor can give
in writing an erroneous charge, IL Is not cause
Tor reversal Of an appeal unless exception
was duly taken at the time, or the error is
fundamental. The venue is sufficiently
proved II it is shown that the offence was
committed within ono hundred and twenty
I'VE yards Of given point located in the
county alleged IN the indictment. White,
?. u.
Il b Archer VS. tho state; from Johnson.
III easetial to tho sutllcisncy of an indict.
ment FOR selling whisky on Sunday TART. 1856
+ fO) that the defendant DO alleged to be a
merchant, grocer or dealer in wares and
merchandise, or trader In any lawful BUSH
ness, as the case may be, and proof that fails
tosupport such allegation, or shows that tho
defendant was merely clork, will not
support a conviction. Reversed and 70
msnded. Hunter,J.
- q Haynes vs. the state; froom Hood.
The court having charged thejury thstto con-
wet they must believe the defendant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, added: II fur.
sher charge you, gentleman, that If you
believe from the evidence beyond reason
able doubt that the defendant Is not guilty,
you will simply say so In your verdict and
no more. Held, m ,nifest error. Re.
ver'od and remsnded. Hurt, j.
rJohn Graham Va. the state; appeal from
Hopkins county. The approval OF the Judge
who presided al the trial Is indispensable Il
sproper Authorization Of statement Of
facts. TIE regular Judge OF tho court
cannot authenticate a statement Of facts In q
case that was not tried before him. In the
absence ola properly authenticated state
ment OF facts. and bills Of exception, this
court can consider only tho indictment AID
chssse Of the court. Affirmed. Hurt, j.
w. W. Pierce vs. tho state; from
Dosque county. Conviction upon an indic,.
ment charging the keeping and exhibition Of
ssaming table for the purpose Of gaming,