The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-10
COURT DECISIONS.
stnopsis of Opinions of the Court of APP
peals.


peals.
Thomas, ct al, vs. State; from Tom Green
county. Where the Judgment nisi fails 10
recte that 1.-THE same will be made final I'M
less good cause be shown at the next term
of the court why the defendant did not APP
pear :" ii is fatally defective. The bond re-
1uired the defendant to appear before
term OF the court, to be held on the 9th day
of May, 1881. The time of court fixed by
law was the 10th Monday after the LIST
Monday in March, which was the 10th day
of NAV. The bond was void because no
such term of the court as that described in
the bond was authorized. Reversed and
dismissed. Wilson,j.
Thomas VS.. State; from Tom Green
county. The Judgment nisi in this case is
fatally defective because of the same omis-
sion as that noted in the case OF Thomas vs..
State, supra. But the bond is not invalid
in this case. 1t is taken by the examining
court, obigatng the defendant to appear
before the district court to answer the
charge of robbery, and for that purpose is
sufficient. For the error indicated, the
Judgment is reversed and cause remanded.
Wilson,j. -,
Rowland & Bro VS.. State; from Smith
county Rev. SITS. Art 1865 fixed the state
occupation tax for selling liquor in quanti-
ties less than one quart at $3.50 per annum,
which appellants paid, but in ISL, before
their license expired, the legislature IN
creased the tax to 500, and the appellants
refused to pay the difference and continued
to sell. Question Is, did their previous IL
cense protect them from the operation of
the new law during the period OF time
covered by their license? Held, that though
the position of appellants is supported by
authority, the weight of authority is adj
verse, and the last statute operated as a re-
vocation of the license obtained under the
previous law. Affirmed. Wilson, ].
Rice vs.. State; from Falls county. This
case was reversed at previous day of this
present term because OF the insuiiiciency OF
of the information, and the attorney-gen-
eral now moves for q rehearng upon the
ground of clerical error. But the record
shows that the prosecution from its incep-
ton was conducted by a county attorney
pro TEN, and that he filed the information
after the adjournment of court. Under
such state of facts the motion must be de-
nicd. Motion Overruled Per curlam.
Caldwell VS.. State; from Collin county.
Unless the record shows objection to the ad-
mission otsthe dying declarations OF the de-
ceased, this court will not revise. Under
the code each Juror in a capital case shall
be tested and passed upon separately, and
IL accepted, the authorized oath shall then
be administered. This was not done in
this case, but on the contrary, the jury
was empannelled and sworn in body. HEIDI
that primarily objection should have been
interposed or the action of the court should
have been attacked by challenge to the ar
ray. Such objection is not tenable in mo-
ton for new trial or in arrest OF judgment.
Affirmed. Hurt, j. [Note.-This is con
viction for murder in the first degree with
the death penalty. Rep.1
Scott VS.. State from Robertson county.
The indictment in this case was sufficient
to charge the appellant of the oliense for
which he was convicted, /. g., arson-the
burning of SIS. Clubhouse. The motion for
continuance was properly overfuled, as as
the statute. The charge is found sufficient
as being responsive TO every issue raised in
the case, and the law requires no more.
The jury, being the proper judges of tho
evidence, passed upon it, and being found
sufficient, the Judgment is affirmed. Per
curtain.
Griffin VS.. State; from Bosque county.
Indictment for aggravated assault upon the
person Of a female must allege that the as
saulting party, was an adult male; Failing
in this, the indictment is insufficient. Re-
versed and remanded. Hurt, j.
Jim Jones VS.. State; from Rob ertson
county. The property stolen was the prop
crty OF one M. but taken from the possession
off. who was holding the same Tor the own
err. In charging the intent the indictment
charged II with the purpose of depriving j.
of the possession. This will not suffice.
The intent must be to deprive the owner OF
the value OF the property, and to so appro-
pirate It.. The affidavit properly charges
the oilense, and hence the the Judgment is
only reversed and remanded, that the
states attorney ifhe sees proper may file
another information. Reversed and re-
manded. White, p. l.
Taylor VS.. State; from Clay county, In
The absence Of such Judgment as finally
finds the defendant guilty of some otierso,
the appeal on motion will be dismissed, In
this case the judgment is defective in that
II brings up no final Judgment ut all. APP
peal dismissed. Per curtain.
Kimble vs.. State; from Guadalupe
county. Art. 100, Penal Code, defines rob-
berry; To constitute robbery the taking
must be either by assault or byviolence, and
putting in fear OF life or bodily harm.
II as In this case the indictment charges as
sault and putting in fear of life, only, it
omits the necessary ingredient of "yio.
lence. " When both grounds are relied
upon, the Indictment should charge by as
sault and by violence, and putting in fear
of life or bodily injury. Apparently, the
ground of assault is abandoned, but
whether or not, the evidence does not sup
port conviction on the ground OF assault
The allegation Is that the defendant twas
induced by reason of putting In fear" The
indictment is not sufficient. Reversed aud
dismissed. Hurt j.
Dreyfus VS.. State; from Dallas county
The prosecution in this case was for forgery
ofan order in favor OF Mel. for a hotel bill
the forged name being that of ono T..
n " IN nj Inn nI ri ul.Nk