The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-12-01
COURT DECISIONS.
syllabus of the Decisions of the Court of
Appeals.

CASTOR vs.. State; from Rusk county. \
recital in the judgement will not supply
the want ola bill of exceptions. In the
rules OF the government of proceedings in
the District Court, it is expressly provided
that 1.-THE ruling of the court upon applica-
ton for continuance and for change OF venu,
and other incidental motions, and upon ad-
mission or rejection of evidence, and upon
other proceedings not embraced in rules SO
and 81, and sought to be complained
of as erroneous, must be presented
by bill of exception, signed by the Judge
and filed by the Clerk or otherwise.
made part of the record" Acceptance Of
service, unless the subpoena be in the hands
of the proper officer, is not service such as
'srequired by law. Affirmed, White, pre-
siding justice.
Smalley vs.the State; from Harrison county
In the prosecution Of the oilense OF keeping a
house OF public prostitution, evidence OF
Illicit intercourse with irequenters OF the
same house, must show that the acts were
committed in the house charged in the com
plant. Reversed and renanded. White,
presiding justice.
Smith county, An accomplish is
defined as a person who know
ingly voluntarily and with common
intent with the principal invites the COM
mission of the olense. The cooperation III
The crime must be real, not merely appar-
ent. and evidence tending to establish that
phase of the case should be admitted, and
charge of the court that rejects such evil
dence is error. Reversed and remanded.
Winkler, judge.
Craddock VS.. State from Dallas county.
nv l., I,s ~ 10 ia nXy
rulings, if upon motion or petition tits made
to appear that the judgment entry was q
nullity even though such motion orpctition
be presented here subsequent to the adj
iournment of the term. To supply lost
records, the party in interest must do SO
upon petition filed by the clerk, Of which
legal notice must be given the opposite
party, and upon hearing an order OF court
should be entered substituting. the entire
lost record. Rehearing granted. wink er
Judge.
Bailey vs.. State, from Brazoria county,
Motions for rehearing before this court must
be'filed. within fifteen days after the rendi'
ton of Judgment unless the adjournment
of the court supervenes in which
case the court is authorized to
make rules, and adopt such
regulations Us may seem to it best controll'
ing such motion. When the minutes ofthe
court fail to disclose the presentation OF the
indictment, the objection should be taken
before verdict Subsequent objection will
not prevail. Rehearing refused Hurt,
judge.
b.. l.. &R. r. Railway VS.. Davis; from
Hopkins county. If the appeal bond APP
pear in the record Endorsed with the proper
lille mark of the clerk the approval of the
court will be presumed, although it does
not expressly appear to have been
approved. The file mark of Justice of the
Peace operates to the same extent, and
motion to dismiss appeal in the County
Court for non approval on such showing
should not prevail, Reversed and re-
handed. White, presiding justice.
Henry Foster VS.. the State; from Robert
son county In trial Tor murder the
court charged in substance on the question
of selt-deiense that ifthe jury believed from
the evidence that at the time of the killing
the deceased was making q violent attack
upon defendant such as would create u
reasonable belief in his mind that death or
serious bodily injury from such
attack was imminent, and defend
ant resorted to all means except retreat to
Illustrate the impending danger, they
should acquit, was error An assaulted
party is not bound to resort to all means
except retreat, but may act upon reasonable
appearance of danger. See Horbach, Ken
dali, Blake and Ainsworth eases. Reversed
and rcmanded. Hurt, judge.
Flames VS. the State; from Hayes county.
In prosecution for bribing, or
offering to bride public Off
Ger, the defense that he was merely sub
Office dc facto and not de jure, is unten-
able. If he is acting as such VIGOROUSLY
and by general recognition those seeking
to corrupt him by bride or otherwise are
liable quite as much as though he was such
officer de iure, Objection that the prisoner
who offered tho bride was not legally in the
custody of the Sheriff because the mitti-
mus was directed to the Sheriff and not the
Deputy Sheriff to whom the bride was of
fered is untenabc. Mttimus was not
necessary to the legal custody ofthe prisoner
remanded to jail by an examining court on
the investigation of charge of murder.
Ailir med. Hurt, judge.
John Stone vs.. the State; from Grayson
county. The charge in this case was for
the reception of stolen property. The de-
fence was the purchase of the property from
negro and the evidence on the issue was
divided by the jury upon com
tlict, with which this court can have nothing
to do-there being n sutlicienCy to sustain
the verdict the indictment being suf-
cient and the charge of the court on
the law of the various questions involved
being unohiectionable, the judgment is af
tirmcd. Per curiam.