The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-06-18


claimed it under an execution sale upon
judgment against z. ard wife for commu-
nifty debt The evidence is abundant to salts
fly This court that the land--less than 200
acres--was the homestead of the defendants,
(appellsnts) and the judgment bolow is re-
versed and remsnded by this court in favor
OF appellanta, quoting their title to the land
in controversy. Qunan,J 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 testimo.
ny ofan acknowledged accomplish corrob.
Grafton of his testimony was indispensable to
u legal conviction. The only fact in regard
to which there was the slightest evidence
tending to corroborate single statement
was 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 a-
legged Gale, but il was not pretended to have
been identified as the bill received for tue
cattle. Held, that such confederation is too
remote, aud not such as will sustain con-
viction upon the testimony of an accomplish.
Reversed and remanded, Hurt, j.
OBrie1 VS. the state; from Hood county.
lnd'",ment that charges that defendan. did
unlawfully permit tho playing of u game of
cards In public place, saloon, etc is not
sustained by proof that the came was played
in an upstairs room va the FALCON
room. which was reached by fl ght of stairs
from the outside and in tnc iesr of the saloon
with no entrance from the inside, and which
proof fails to show any connection between
tho saloon room and the upstairs room, or
that it was used in business in connection
with the saloon room. Reversed and reman-
ded. Hurt, j.
Campbell We the state; from Parker coun-
ty. Witness having estifled that he lived
about one and q quarter miles northwesternly
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
reports of firearms on that day,
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 obi ction 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 judgmen. is affirmed.
Wiukler j.
Jones vs. State; from Navarro county
That the indictment was not signed by the
foreman of the grand jury, is an objection to
la OF tI 10 -
Objection is not of substance but of firm,
aud 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 tho Of.
fence, evidence Of tho general char,
aeter OF the party is relevant to
the issue, and therefore admissible, but when
penalty is denounced for the mere act, ire
spective of the intention it is not go, the de-
tendant when charged with and ia on trial
for crime, is at liberty TO put his general
character in evidence, with limitations rs
stated, and subject TO the right of the state to
rebuff the proof offered, Tho court erred in
refusing to permit defendant to prove his
general character. Reversed and 70 handed
WinkIer, j.
O'Connell, alias Williams vs. The state /:
from Navarro county. Where the prisoner
having been examined as witness in "A pros.
'cutun against another person, answered
questions to which he might have demurr, d
MS lending to crlmna,e himself and which
consequently he was not bound to answer.
hi, answers arc deemed voluntary, and may
substantially BIO used against him. Tesli.
mony before u magistrate in an examining
trial Ia required by statute to DO red, ced 10
writing, sisced by the witness and
certified BY tho magistrate. When
this IL required the law presumes
that tue magistrate performed all his duty,
and In such case parol evidence of what lie
wittess said cannot be received. But il
/ shown that the examination was not reduced
10 writing, or IT tho written examination is
wholly inedmissible because of ilregulsrity,
parol evidence is admitted to prove what was
disclosed. II 1t remains Uncertain whether or
not 1t wss reduced to writing, II will be pro
sumed that the magistrate did bis whole duty.
and ognl evidence will he rejected Und,r
these rules objection TO the testimony of S.
MS to thu statements Of accused on examining
trial Of IL. which were reduced TO writing
should have been sustained, tho written test .
mony taken by the magistrate being tho Dos,
II not the only admissible evidence. Reversed
and ren,snded. White. P.J.
johnson va tho state; from johnson
county. Regulation of practice in placing
witnesses under the rule on reques, Of either
party. la duty coming within tho discre,
ton OF lae trial judge, and not subject TO re-.
vision bv this court except In case of abuse.
Ordinarily expert witnesses, as we'll as At
torneys In tho case and witnesses called 10
testify to the reputation of a witness for
ruth, etc., are excepted from the rule
When medical expert, are called solely AZ
such.the better practice Is. exclude them from
tho rule, that from the whole testimony thew
may s've professional opinion s,ill; whom
not lone u Is proper to submit 10 them
hypothetical cases, embracing the fac,s in
evidence. In this caso the medical witnesses
wera no, called for professional opinions on
Other "tld nee, but 20 give personal evidence
OF he Gcfendants mental condition "a do.
rived from y personal acquaintance with
him, and the court did not abuse lis discro.
ton In subjac,iug them 10 tho operation n,
thn rtiln Ma 4.