The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1881-12-08

no PRESENTING statement of facts or ills Of
exception, Affirmed, White, presiding
Justice.
IN this case, wherein the defendant WIS
prosecuted for theft Of n horse jus appll-
cation for continuance admitted The taxing
Of the animal, but set up that u was tateI
for the purpose Of riding 10 the county, Of
| Washington on visit 10 relatives. liold,
TO constitute no defense, and that the ap'
plicatiOn was properly refused Inc
| evidence being sufficient 10 sustain the YER
dict the judgment Is affirmed. White, pre-
siding justice.
Hill vs.. the State from county; An
indictment tor theft Of Il horse may allege
| tho property In any one
having the actual possession, manage
ment and control of the animal, even
though such person be not the actual
owner. Conviction based upon the unsup'
| ported testimony of q witness shown 10 be
grossly prejudiced, and who contradicted
and stulti6ed himself, cannot stand. Re-
yersed and remanded. Hurt, judge.
| Durley VS.. State; from Camp county,
The statute provides that statement oil
facts may be drawn up and placed in the
record in criminal cases in the same man.
ner as in civil. and with reference to
| these latter, il may be done in vacation by
order of the court, and spread on the MN
utes not more than ten days after adjourn
ment Statement Of facts in this case ap-
pear filed in vacation, and no such order is
brought up in the record. Bill of eXcep-
tions filed in term time, signed by the
Judge, recites that the State proved no
venue, did not prove that the offense was
committed in the State of Texas or county
of Camp or that defendant was an adult
male. Reversed and remanded. Winkler,
Judge.
Hurst VS.. State; from Cooke county. In
this case the defense rested upon an abb,
but the defendant was recognized by three
witnesses. and the jury are charged to pass
upon conflicts of evidence. In the light OF
the evidence it is not probable that the
testimony for which the continuance was
sought was true, even if it could be pro-
duced and application was properly over
ruled. Bills of exceptions, which appear
from the record to have been certified after
expiration of the term of court, will not be
considered. Affirmed. Per curiam.
Tom Bostic VS.. State from Colorado
county. 1t is principle of elementary law
that witness called by the opposing
party can be dscredited by proving that ON
former occasion he made statement IN
consistent with his statement on trial. pro-
yided such statement be material to the
issue. That the evidence to so impeach the
witness was cumulative is no objection, and
it was error to exclude it on that ground.
Reversed and remanded. White, presiding
justice.
Stephens vs.. State from Lavacca county.
The indictment in this case was JOINT
against the defendant and one d., but d.
being tried and acquitted, was used by the
State in the prosecution of defendant, and
the objection in this case is directed to that
proceeding. Held, That the law OF accom-
plice having been properly given in charge
and D. being corroborated, the court did
not err. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Funderburk VS.. State; from Navarro
county. In prosecution for theft from
the person wherein the evidence showed in
substance that the person injured had on
her person another purse than her own,
the defendant asked charge in substance
that the jury must believe the property
stolen to be that of the person charged ana
stolen as United States currency as Gil i"2sed.
Held, that the charge was properly re used
Affirmed. Per curtain.