The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-06-23

----------
or exception 10 the admission OF tho los
m ony OF certain witnesses which fall 10 state
the grounds Of objection, will not be c0nsld-
cred. The verdict In this case o. manIfestly
against the evidence. Reverse and remanded.
Quinsn, j.
Hamilton vs. Flume OF al; from Travis.
Defendants (appellees) were minors, ana O
guardian I'D litem was appointed, and they
answered, claiming IL Goth Of the lot and
that the conveyance under which II claimed
was intended as a mortgage On trial the
court submitted special pleas, asd jury
responded: lst That the deed from X to
ii was mortgage. I'd. That separate
interest In the lot Of Amelia Kleiuert was
17.20th, and that of I'll Kleinert was Goth.
| I'd. That II had no ice of Amelia KS
separate interest when he received the deed
from X. 4th That the consideration of
the deed was preexistlng debt from X to
Fl. Judgment against II. Errors assigned
that court erred in permitting Fl
sufficiency of evidence to support
the verdict. Il, Kline.t was not a party to The
suit; the minors Were represented by
guardian ad Item, appointed by the court,
and not bonded or sworn. Though no ex-
ception WAS taken below on the accounts, the
court holds that on either ground the iudg-
ment must be reversed Reversed and re-
manded. QuinaD, j.
Powell and wife We. Denmsn from Nc
Lehman county. The defence in an action of
trespass to try title was, that the land in con-
truversy was the separate property of Mrs.
F., the wife of the defendants that it was the
homestead of defendants and that plaintiff
claimed it under IN execution eale upon
judgment against P. ard wife for commit
nifty debt. The evidence is abundant to sstis-
fly this court that the land-less than 200
acres-was the homestead of the defendants,
(appellants) ard the judgment below is re,
versed and remanded bS this court in favor
OF appellants, quieting their title to the land
in controversy. Qiunan, j.
Decisions of the Court of Appeals.
Jernigan vs. the state; from Brown county
The prosecution being for theft of cat lie,
and the state relying solely upon the testmo-
ny ofan acknowledged accomplice, corrob-
grafton of his testimony was indispensable to
legal conviction. The only fact in regard
to which there was the slightest evidence
tending to corroborate a single statement
wa, that having testified that the stolen an
imals had been sold by accused and witness,
who received in payment 500 bill; it was
proved that 500 bill was seen in the pos
session of accused and witness after the al.
legged sale, but il was not pretended to have
been identified IS the bill received for the
cattle. Held, that such confederation is too
remote, AID not such as will sustain CON-
viction upon the ties imony Of an sccomplice.
Reversed and reminded. Hurt, j.
Rssn OIL boz, to
Indictment that charges that defendant did
unlawfully permit tho playing of game of
cards in public place, a saloon, etc, is not
sustained by proof that the game was played
in an upstairs room over the saloon
room. which was reached by fl sht of stairs
from the outside and in the rear of the saloon
with no entrance from tho inside, and which
proof fails to show any connection between
the saloon room and the upstairs room, or
that it was used in business in connection
with the saloon room. Reversed and remain
ded Hurt,J.
Campbell Va the state; from Parker coun-
ty. Witness having estihed that he lived
about one and quarter miles north westernly
from where the dead body WAS found; that
his remembrance was that on the alleged
Sunday of the shooting the wind WAS blowing
from the south, and that he, heard no
lbpOIbb VI uIcol LIE Oh shos u"Jb
he was asked by the defence
if there had been three or four shots fred on
that day at or near that place could he have
heard them. Heidi that the court did not
err in sustaining the states objection to the
question. A careful inspection of the reward
discloses no error In the charge OF the court,
or that refusing charges asked, the court
erred, and that the judgment is affirmed.
WinklerJ j.
Jones VS. State; from Navarro county.
That the Indictment was not signed by the
foreman of the grand jury, is an objection to
its sufficieucy that is not tenable. Such an
objection is not of substance but of firm
and hence not available in motion in arrest
OF Judgment. On the defendants proof of
good character, the rule seems TO be that
whenever in criminal prosecution guilty
knowledge or criminal intention is
of the essence of the Of
fence, evidence of the general char
acter of the party Is relevant to
the issue, and therefore admissible, but when
penalty lie denounced for the mere sci, ire
specsiVe OF tho intention IL Is nos 10, lie de-
PENDANT when charged with and is on trial
for crime, is at liberty 10 put his general
character in evidence, with limitations as
sisted, and subject to the right of the state to
rehut the proof offered. The court erred in
refusing to permit defendant TO prove MS
general character. Reversed and 70 handed.
Winkler, j.
O'Connell, alias Williams VS. The state;
from Navarro county. Where the prisoner
having been examined ss q witness in pros
rcu,i0n against another person, answered
questions to which be might have demurred
as tending TO crimins,e bimself and which
cons quently he was no, bound to answer,
his al wers are deemed voluntary, and may
substantially be used sgainst him. Testi-
mony before a mag .strste In an examining
trial il required by statute 10 be redrced 70
writing, sigsed by the witness and
certified by the magistrate. When
this Is required the law presumes
that the magistrate performed all his duty,
and IN such case parol evidence Of what the
witpess said cannot be received. But II
shown that the examination was not redl cd
20 writing, or IL the written exsminstiJn is
wholly inadmissible because Of irregularity,
parol evidence is admitted 10 prove what was
disclosed. lift remsins uncertain whether or
not 1t was reduced TO writing, 1t will be pre-
sumed thst the magistrate old his whole duty,
and oral evidence will be rejected. Under