The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-05-26
THE UOU nTs
Synopsis OF Opinions or Court Of
Appeals.

Appeals.
Bret Va the state; appeal from Caldwell
AS TO cross examination Of witnesses for III
prosecution, tho rule laid down by Nj
Greenleaf, Is that witness cannot be cross
examined as TO any fact which Is collstera
and irrelevant to the issue, merely for tn
purpose of contradcting him by other evi
dence, If he shall deny 1t, and thereby dis
credit his testimony. Greenleaf on evidence
sec. 449; 7 Texas ct. app, so; nor for purpos
of impeachment. does the law sanction al
unnecessary inquiry into the antecedents Of
witness. 6 Texas ct. app, BAG.
Other supposed errors arc insisted upor
in the assignment and in the brief of coun-
sci, which we do not consider 1t necessary tc
discuss, in view of the conclusio We have
arrived at as to the proper disposition to he
made ofthe case as presented on tie appeal
We are not satisfied of the character, conclu-
siveness and suficency of the evidence upon
which the judgment is based. 10 proof Of his
ownership and the identity of the animal the
principal prosecuting witness testified
"When l found the SOW at defendants
smoke house it had been scalded and clean
cd and Quilted. knew IL was my SOW from
the fact that there were some black hairs on
the head. There was nothing about the ami
man when found by me by which 1 could
tell that it was SOW, but God knows it was
SOW and l know it," Another states
witness testified, II went to tho COW. 1t
may have been two steps and it may have
been ten steps. When saw the cow | don't
know whether she was lying on her belly or
on her back, but don't think che was lying
on either of these places. don't know
which end Of her was towards me. knows
it was sow and God knows it was q sow. 1
have never seen that SOW SINCE" In behalf
of defendant, besides three of his own
family, white man testified that the animal
killed was in defendants mark. Defendants
character for honesty was also established by
white witnesses who had known him for
years. The court erred in refusing a new
trial in consideration of the mesgerness and
of the evidence, wherefore the
Judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
White, P. j.
Whitney VS. the state; appeal from Erath,
In this case the charge in the indictment was
that defendant did "unlawfully keep and
tAulDlL ghIuiUS thul0 iOT tU6 puipDeD vi
gaming" The proof was that defendan threw
dice and permitted the same to be thrown for
both money and drinks, on common pine
table within his saloon
Held, that such table is not part OF,
nor essential TO the game of dice, for the
same may be thrown as well-upon any other
smooth surface. AT the time the efense is
alleged to have been committed, gambling
under such circumstances came within none
of the rules pertaining to the games which
were delayed, dealt, KEEP. or exhibited for
gaming purposes" Reversed and remanded.
White, P.J.
Merritt VS.. the state; appeal from Co.
msnche.
/. Under previous decisions there is really
but little, if any, difference in the construc
lion placed upon the law of adultery 2. d.
Art. 2024] and the present existing statute
Art. 1888, p. CAiea Swsn"ost VS.. state, 5
Texas, court hl05; Park vs. state,
j; !; ! ! ||||| 4
appeals,
2. Th}
cnmmitt
and hs1
be he
Rsve3