The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-04-30
THE UOU RTS.
synopsis Of Opinions OF Court OF APP
peals, April Term, 1851.

synopsis Of Opinions OF Court Of APP.
peals, April Term, 1851.
Ellis ct al. We. the state appeal from Will
son. l. In ofense, clsssed as misdemean.
on sheriffs, under the laws, have
authority to take appearance or bail
bond, either in term time or in vscs.
ton. 2.::Judgment nisl against the surety
alone. while the Asri faciss recites judg,
msnt against both principal and surety |, 9
fatal variance. 8. Its error to correct q
Judgment nisi where the defendant has moi
been served with notice Of the motion to cor
rect. Reversed and remanded. Wink
Ter, j.
Shipp vs.. the state; appeal from Blanco.
Appellant was tried and convicted for theft
ofcattle. Motion for new trial was made
principally on the ground that one OF the
Jurors 10 the case, prior TO the trial, bad
made use of language tending to show be
was prejudicsd sgsinst the defendant and
was NOT an impartial juror, which facts were
not known TO defendant till after the trial The
language Of the juror was to the effect tia.
the defendant had done enough, outside Of
the offense for which he was indicted, and
that he observed TO be sent TO the penitenti
ary." Held, That under these circumstances
new trial should have been granted. Re-
versed and rtmsAded. Minkler, j.
Troy 70. the state; appeal from Atascosa.
10y A properly framed special plea oil
au.refois aoquit should be allowed TO 20 10
the jury With the plea Of not guilty, under
proper Instructions from the court (2)
Appellant, prosected under act Of March
18th, 1879, entitled, An act 10 protect the
wool growing interests Of the state, asked the
following charge: "If the jury believe from
the evidence that the sheep Of defendant did
not have the scab they will find him not
guilty. If The jury believe from the evidence
that the defensnt did not wilfully
violate the law in keeping bis
sheep IN the limits prescribed
BY the inspection, you will Aud him not gdil.
ty." Held, that 1t was q natural INQUIRY
whether defendants flock of sheep had scs6
or not, and whether, this being the case, he
had wilfully and knowingly failed of his
duty In the premises, and that II was error to
refuse to instruct the jury in substance as re-.
quested. Reversed and remanded. Wink.
Ter. j.
Foy vs. the state; appeal from Caldwell.
l. The venue Of the offense was not prov,
en- as alleged in the Information. Clark'r
Criminal Laws Of Texas. page 1918, and
notes.
2. The record does not show that defend
ant pleaded to the information, nor that he
refused to plead, and plea was entered fol
him. Clark's Criminal Law, page 458 and
note. Reversed and remsnded, White p. j.
Perez vs the state; appeal from vii.
son. Il. For mutiation of Nd information
or an indictment the practice is to substitute
under article 434 CO. p. (2 In cases Of
misdemeanor the law contemplates and
requires that the information be based upon
the complaint and the complaint is q fiinda>
mental part of the information. Without q
complaint upon which to base 1t motion "a
quash, or exceptions to the information
would be good In law. Any inherent defeci
In the complaint might be reached by 9
motion to quAsh or exceptions to the infor.
NATION. Is Infamy, Occasioned by conviction
OF felony, renders party incompetent T.
testify under our statute; q. @. p. 730. MOI
only 90, "but it is said that his affidavit,
cannot be read 10 support criminal char 20 y
Wharton's Criminal Evidence e edition)
section 1854, Long vs. state, Galveston term
1881. II is the judgment Of conviction, and
that alone, which Is the legal conclusive
evidence of the party's guilt for the purpose
Of rendering him incompetent TO testify.
Greanleaf Evidence, section 1916; Cooper VI
state, Texas court: Of appeals, 1914. e.
A motion In arrest Of judgment must b,
accompanied by the judgement or al
authenticated copy Of the same. Reversed
and remanded. White. P.J.