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


0aston W. statei from Rusk county q
recital In tho judgement will not supply
ibo want ofn bill Of exceptions IN tn'
rules Of the government Of proceedings W
the District Court, II Is expressly provideu
that "the ruling of tho court upon "Ppi'V"
ton for continuance and for change Oh 'on"'
and other incidental motions, and upon au'
mission or rejection Of evidence, ana upon
other proceedings not embraced in rules 90
and 81, and sought to be coin npsanied
nv bill of exception, signed by the judge
and filed by the CLERK or otherwise
, niu n mart Of the record" Acceptance OF
narv;ce ppnless the subpoena be in the hands
Of the nroner officer, is not service. such as
is required by law. Affirmed Whi'e' pre-
siding justice, ,. 1rorr;son countv
Inthe prosecution OF the olIense VI h1oPne Of 4
house of public prostitution, evidence VI
illicit intercourse with trequenters OF the
same house. must show that the acts were
committed in the house charged in the com
nlaint, Reversed and remanded. Whlte,
presiding justice. A.. ctoto. frbm
Smith county. An accomplce is
defined as a person VINO hino W.
ingly, voluntarily and with common
intent with the principal invites nnG COIN, n
mission of the of1ense. The co-operatloll III
tbe crime must be real, not merely ,apPar.
ent. and evidence tending to establish that
phase of the case should be admitted, ana
charge of the court that rejects SUCH evi-
dence is error. Reversed and remahueo'
Winkler judge.
Craddock VS.. State; from Dailas G ~ my,
This court has the power to reverse, lts own
rulings, if upon motion or petition JUS maui =
nullity even though such motion or petltlo,i
be presented here subsequent TO the au.
iournment of the term. To supply, lost
records, the party in interest must 40 SO
mon !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 enllre
lost record Rehearing granted. Wlnkler,
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 III when
case the court is authorized to
make rules, and adopt such
regulations as may seem to best, controil'
ing such motion. When the minutes OF the
court fail to disclose the presentation OF tne
indictment, the objection should be taken
before verdict. Subsequent objection VIII
not prevail. Rehearing refused. Hurt,
judge.
Ell. &R. r. Railway VS.. Davis; from
Hopkins county. If the appeal bond APP
pear in the record Endorsed with the proper
file mark of the clerk, the approval OF the
court will be presumed, although it does
not expressly eappeaE to 1 hsye Of Ff fGe
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-
manded. White, presiding justice.
Henry Foster VS.. the State; from Robert
son county. In trial for murder the
court charged in substance on the question
of self-defense that if the jury believed from
the evidence that at the time of the killing
the deceased was making a violent attack
upon defendant, such as would create a
reasonable belief in his mind that death OF
serious bodily injury from such
attack was Imminent, and defend
ant reserted 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
appearance Of danger. See Horbach, Ken.
dali, Blake and Ainsworth cases. Reversed
and remanded. Hurt, judge.
Flames VS. the State; from Hayes county
In~~aN prosecution for bribing, OF
offering to bride public offi'
Ger, the defense that he was merely sub
office de facto, and not de iure, is unten
able. If he is acting us such VIGOROUSLY
and by general recognition, those seeking
to corrupt him by bride or otherwise are
liable quite as much as though he was sucl
officer de jure. Objection that the prisoner
who offered the bride was not legally in the
custody of the Sheriff because the mitti
mus was directed to the Sheriff and not TIA,
Deputy Sheriff to whom the bride was of
fcSed is untenable. Mittimus was moi
nee Sssary to the legal custody of the prisoner
remanded. to Jail by an examining court, or
the Investigation of charge of murder
Affir med. Hurt, s.1dge.
John Stone VS.. the State; from Graysor
county. The charge in this case was fol
the reception of stolen property. The de
fence was the purchase ofthe property from
a negro, and the evidence on the issue wal
divided by tho jury upon q com
fiict, with which this court can have nothing
to do-there being sutliciency to sustain
the verdict, the indictment being suf
Gent and the charge Of the court OF
the law of the various questions involved
being unobiectionable, the judgment is ai
firmed. Per curtain.