The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-17
COURT DECISIONS,
.,.,s of Opinions of the Court Of APP
peals


.,.,s of Opinions Of the Court OF APP
peals.
y.,ton VS.. State from Grimes county.
criminal actions for misdemeanor the
~ is not required to charge the jury,
ssspt ON the request Of counsel, but when
IAN be requested must give or refuse
s,rses in writing. Oral charge over OBJ
ZION OF defendant is error. Reversed and
handed. Hurt,j.
p.;nvater VS.. State from Dallas county
~ Indictment in sufficient form charges
Y attendant with the offense of betting al
Enc on a table kept for that purpose.
.Isnor is one of the inhibited games. In the
.s. s, of statement of facts, this court
~ only look to the suiliciency of the in
ssment and the correctness Of the charge.
~ Indictment is sufficient, and no funda.
s,ptsl error is apparent. Affirmed.
pI;nlore VS.. State; from Dallas county.
me Indictment charges the defendant with
'..ault and battery upon his wife, and is
S@eient for the purpose. The charge, as
sessions of abstract law must be consider
u Milicient in the absence of statement
| Jiacts. For the same reason the motion
\, new trial cannot be considered. AT.
srmed. Hurt, j.
iohnson VS.. State; from Houston county,
ne Indictment charged assault with intent
4 Nm A. The only objection,urged to the
.ryiction is based upon the charge and
|Msnfflciency of the evidence. The general
Sarge submitting fairly the issue in dis
mite it was not error to refuse special
Sarge thereon. Though the evidence be-
ne conflicting, the verdict ofthe Jury, who
M proper judges of the credibility of the
,yidence, will not be interfered with
vhen the evidence is found sufficient to
rpport the verdict. Affirmed, Wilson, /.
dunbar VS.. State; from Dallas county.
The Indictment was for keeping disor-
isrly house. The defense interposed was
hst it was "hotel." The evidence, how
syer, is conclusive that it was house of
Dmmon prostitution. That being the
ase, the indictment properly charged the
Ofense and the mere fact that it was by its
nroprietOr denominated hotel will not
nreyail as defense. Evidence and charge
ae both sufficient. Affirmed. Wilson, i.
Wallace VS.. State; from Wilson county
Indictment charges . did permit a
certain game to-wit, the game of monte
10 be played in a certain house
in the town of +, in said county, in q
house known as the saloon of said Wallace,
and then and there under the control of
said Wallace" The indictment fails to
slege that the "salooA" is house used for
retailing spirituous liquors or other public
house, or that the table on which the game
was played was exhibited for that purpose.
These are essential allegations. Reversed
and remanded. Wilson, j.
Crosier VS.. State; from Dallas county.
The Indictment for the violation of the
Sunday law, charged the sale on that day
Of beer and whisky, which was sufficient
under the sta ute. The evidence sustains
The verdict of conviction. None of the
grounds upon which the motion for new
trial is asked are tenablo under the evil
denCe. The judgment is affirmed. Hurt, !.
Wilson vs.. State; from Wise county. The
notice Of appeal was given in this case when
the motion for new trial was overruled,
which is the proper time, and motion 10
dismiss appeal on the ground that the ap-
peal was taken from an interlocutory judy
ment is not sustained by the record. Proof
that G.. had the animal in charge and
was taking care of it, and watching
after it on its accustomed range
meets the requirements of the law as to
possession; consent Of the owner to the tax
ing must be proved like any other element
Of the taking. 1t can neither be presumed
or inferred, but may be proved 10y circum-
santial evidence. Still IT must be proved.
The evidence is not satisfactory. Reversed
and remanded. Wilson, j.
Randall VS., State from Waller county.
The defense to an indictment for theft of a
yearling was based upon former con-
viction of the same otiense. Such is q
proper issue under proper submission to
be decided by the evidence, and it is not
sustained in this case. Hence, the pro-
ceedings otherwise. and the charges, be-
ing correct, the judgment is affirmed
Hurt, /.
Scribner VS.. State; from Collin county
This court entertained jurisdiction Of the
appeal in this case at former day of thi:
court, because its jurisdiction appeared
clear upon the record. But on rehearing, il
appearing by sufficient showing that the
ar unit involved in the litigation was il
t1 below the appealable jurisdiction
Of this court, though appearing different
upon the record, this court will gran
q rehearing, and upon the merits
ofthe question will dismiss the appeal
Appeal dismissed. Wilson, ].
Beacon VS.. State; from Kinney county
This is an appeal from the court below OF
babeas corpus, bail being refused, and il
before us on motion for rehearing, The judg
ment below having heretofore been affirmed
i is adverse to the practice of this court to
discuss the evidence in such cases. TIT
court, however, recognizes the rules upol
express motion, and questions Of practice
stated in Mccoy VS.. State, y Tex, 80
Dewey VS.. State, 25 Tex, 40; exparte Eos
sar VS.. State, 8 CT, App, 625. Motion fo
oyerruled. Wilson, J.