The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-01-23

IpoTisas Of The penal or civil statues relating
To the same subject natter There is no il
consistency boiw'op article 756 supra arC
j. artici1 1866 Of The rayii8d statues. On lht
contrary the lstler provides that butchers
shall make q report, fJildre TO mako which
T iS punished by Grticlo 75G supra If 10y
. errer wAf committed they are NO, of Il
q Fundamental n chsracLlr as 10 require oui
a kotiCe, being 8 misd5meauer and The do
foAdsat haviag failed to tska edsentsgo Of
suck orr0r by proper bills of exception saved
Q on the trial Affirmed. white, T. J.
IA. keoningugheimer vs. Randolph % Van
AlstiSs; appeal from We5b County Ap.
; psllses gave their sen-negolsbs soto to
r Michael Brss., and it wss by them ASSIGNED
10 appellant wRo brought suit in his own
nanr. gsaSrsl demurrer glsne WAS
pleaded to tho original petition ard with
out aeLi0H hsrOon, pIRindds with laave of
court filed amended petition curing all de-.
isctE in the original. No demurrer or excsp.
tlon wss taken To the amended peLitoE bat a
regular Aaswor to tho ameRded petitioa.
ina court sustained the general demurrer
whos was luterposed to tho orieiuSl petit
ton sad dismissed tho case. Held: In cur
vlsw the original amended petition presented
COED cSuae Ofaetion and general demurrer
70 ltsheuld in 40 sYent have bean sustained.
Reversed aud ramandod. White, T.. j,
Fulhalmcr Frsak6l & Co., VS. j. NJ. Ball
u Bro. Appeal from Hunt counts. This
appsIlaOS had suspended business ana cxacu.
ted dded of asslgnmon. for their eatige stock
OF nor0handiss 10 q. w. Winbray, for Che
boheilt OF such OF their craditors as would
accept tho saao, The decd was on record and
Wimberg IN possession Of the goodl when
'h' attachment was levied, The bond
givah TO obtain tao attachment was in CON-
pllance with 'be statute then in f0rcB. The
petltlsn Was no. sworn 10 but tho affidavit
icr the attachment contained al, tho mate
rial substantive nGttFrs sot forth in The peE.
uoas aad this VISA sufficient. Therefore
.h9 court erred IN sustaining the
datsnaants melton 10 gasah the a.lacbmoRt
LES ased OF assignment 10 burlenad with
oAr-marHgot fraud TO such an oxtant that in
Gha opinion Of the court tho Same is void for
lESad apparent is upon ita fscs. Royerssj
&. d'd't F'-rt irtoe
and fsa ssRssaI 70 these sstSqqch oa- r 'm
Boa Harrison VS. tho state OF T6xa5; ap> /
peal from Dewitt county. The appellant
was prosecuted ~ tha county court on intor-
mauon charging him With aggravated assault, |
md was tried on plea Of not guilty. The
court confined tho charge TO an aggravated as
gAult aad although requested Ignored the queR
ton Of simple assault. Tho Jury Tegir9a aad
brought ia verdict Of guilty. Of simple as-
eault, snd assessed tho fno al ST. The nlur.
refused TO receive tho verdict and told She !
jury they should retire and read the igstruu, !
lions, upon which Jba jury retired again, TO-
turned INTO court with y8rljo. of guilty OF
aggravated assault, Rud pssgssad lha punish !
nsnt VI 525. Proper bills Of exception were
saved 70 TINS action of thg court This is |
really tho 0lY point ia tbs Cas3, the ether
tive revolving oa the ho,ioa Of tho court ia !
this respect Held: That oue indicted or
informed sgsnst for nn aggravated assault
can DO legally convicted OF either IN 0agya- |
yAtoA assault or simple assault Ina5much
therefore, rs the judge refused to charge on
slmP'e assault IN the present case IL Wd3
error and the eas9 must be reversed Re-
versed and reminded. Wrinkle, Judge.
James Williams vs.. the state Of Texas; a.-
peal from Nueces county. This is an appeal
trem conviction ofrobbery 6ud punishment
affixed Nv Two years in the pauitentiAy.
There arc no bills Of exceptions or state
inent OF facH in the record. Only two Qaes.
tons arS discussed in the brisf of appellant.
First it is urged that the third paragraph of
the charge Of the court 10 erro-
neouS, in that it 'all0wgd tho jury srbi!Ja-
rily TO believe or disboGya any witness or
witnesses who testified in the cgse,n he
charge was not excepted to at the time Of its
delivery, nor were any additional instructions
asked; Hold: That tho cerract rule is laid
down in Bissp vs.. the state, 43 Iexs. The
effect OF the rule in this casa is 10 roquire the
court TO inquire whether or not the
charge objected 10 for tho first time in the
melton for new trial Was IA error which,
under ths circumstances of the case SIS OK
hibiied in tho the record would require
q reversal of the Judgment There being NO
statement of facts, the court say: "We arc
unable to test its appropriateness to ORy-
Thing In tho testimony" "AbJUt
all that csA be said with reference
to this charge ia that it is sp
effort on the part Of the court to aid tho
jury in arriving at conclusion which had
generally better BIO let alone" Affirmed.
Winkler, judge.
Julius Henry, administrator, vs.. Manual
r. Basce. Error from Duyal county.
Plaintiff ia error Instituted suit IN
justices court by attachment The defendant
in justices court moved that The attachment
be quasbal because plaintiff had not FLED in
tho Justices court petition for an attach
meut. Motion overruled, trial had had vsr-
dict for defendant for $500 damages. Tran
script from Justices court does not ahOw that
any judgment was rem cred on tho verdict Of
tho jury. Case ws7 appealed to county
court. Where the case W mt oil Rppsrcntly
on motion of the defendants counsel 20
quash the attachment on tbs grounds simil0r
To grounds sat up in justcys court Held =:
That the actios OF tho county court was
erroneous in That it held that the proceedings
by attachment belora tbs justice If tie
peaca could not 10 mAntsinod, oxeap, ca
petition verified by affidavit. phs couaty
court erred in quAshing the attachment
and dismilsing tAs appeal On the
Grounds stated in the motion and
because of this error the judgment
will DO reversed and tho case rGmNadsd.
Wiuklcr judge.
Bernardo Landin W. the state Of raxaf;
appeal from Webb county "lha appellant
was convicted Of theft Of steer, The chSrpe
Of lhe court 10 q fqs.Tsh and impMt,a,
: application Of the laW"eo every phase OF the
cas- as made hy the facts" =
, "Faore remsuB but enc question: Doe. The
evidence support the verdict? We think
. not. Tho fraudulent intent is wanting.
. ITO constitute tbsn
. herc must not only ba taking Of IL,
l. property of another without his consent, bu,
o mind must Intend fraudulent taking will
0 nteAt to defraud tho owner Of the value
y thereof" There is is no such frAudu ont in
1t tent shown in the statement of facts, where