The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-08

awarded. The record fails TO 10.
dictate with any probability the truth OF the
matter set up In the motion for new trial and
therefore II was error TO override the
motion. The charge was full and sufficient
and there was no bill Of exceptions served.
Affirmed. Per curtain.
Mcclure VS.. State; from Atascosa county.
That the indictment was fatally defective,
because il ommitted to allege that the PTS
toll was 'unlawiully carried lis not tenablC
objection to IT, (See Pickett VS.. State II
CT. App The evidence shows that the de
PENDANT was not traveller within the mean
ing of the law. He was present and did
not object when the county attorney agreed
that the court should deliver verba
charge to the jury. Affirmed. Per Gu
curidm.
Kel Va. Sta e; from McIonnan county
lnurmaliCn that. charges aggravated as
sauit with premcdlated assault and by
means calculated 10 inilict great bodily in
jury, is suffice TO charge the oflense
That the means used (the fists in this case
abundantly shown in this case. The fact
in evidence are abundantly sufficient t.
susthin the conviction. Affirmed. White
Thomas VS.. State from Robertson
county. The prosecution is based on al
affidavit charging appellant with aggra
waited assault. The information charges y
X X "now here in the affidavit X y y
which is herewith filed Y y and shows tt
the court" Held under ct. App. that the
information is insufficient, in that "showS
TO the court" is not direct allegation that
the defendant committed the otlense
Again it appears that the affidavit" not
the Information, ;" shows to the court. Re-
versed and dismissed. Wilson, j
Case VS.. State; from Bexar county.
The defendant was charged with theft OF
G's. properly from the possession of said G
The evidence shows that the property was
taken from the possession of 2. V. not G.
Though the charge was Il ct. App. $50 a
taking from the possession of the owner
and evidence showed a taking from the pos
session of his servant and held to be TAX
ing from the owner, there is no such priyity
shown in this case. There is nothing to
show that p. was holding for G., the owner,
but for one S. The statute makes the al
legation OF possession of necessary descrip-
tive ingredient of the otfense of them. sub.
stantial proof is necessary. Reversed and
remanded. Wilson, j,
Powell vs. State; from Robertson county.
Indictments for .ornication charged # u III
Ibid live together and carnally know n
n. Substantially the charge authorized
q conviction upon proof of carnal knowl-
edge without an actual living together.
Held erroneous, as the charge authorizing
a conviction for acts not charged in the in
and that such an error is tunda-
mental. Reversed and remanded. Hurt. J..
, Collins VS.. State; from Callahan county.
g, G. 2. A declares the manner In which
and bail bonds shall be for
feited and provides, among other things,
that TO be valid, a judgment Mai must
Estate that the same will be made
final unless good cause be shown at
the next term of the court why
defendant did not appear" In this
case the Judgment instead of so stating,
merely cited the defendant to appear at
the next term to show cause why the final
should not be rendered. Judg-
ment nisi, therefore, was not rendered az
cording to law. Reversed and remanded.
White, p. ].
McIlhaney VS.. State; from Johnson coun-
by. The prosecution was for keeping dis
orderly house, the same being common
resort for prostitutes and vagabonds. The
evidence shows that appellant kept sa-
Don where beer, ice and liquors were sold;
hat prostitutes were frequently seen in the
house, sometimes drinking, sometimes not,
and good, respectable people often resorted
here to purchase beer, ice, etc. Held, to
bring the house within the inhibition of
purpose of prostitution, or as a common re-
sort Tor prostitutes and vagabonds. The
evidence does not sustain the conviction.
and remanded. Wilson,j.
Garcia VS.. State from Webb county. That
ne cannot read or write is made by stat
ate cause for challenge of juror, except
when it appears to the court that requis-
tie number of persons who can read and
write cannot be found in the county. This
I,tn 20 he IN In Nert1a IN
That the county was sparsely populated is
no such appearance of the fact TO the court,
md that this provision has been dispensed
with by previous order of the court, is no
authority vested in the trial court. Re-
versed and remanded. Wilson, j.
Williams VS.. State from Smith county.
To constitute robbery the taking of the
must either be by assault or by
violence and putting in fear of Lille or
bodily injury. In the first instance
.he need be no putting in fear of life or
bodily injury. In the latter case, i. c., by
these elements must exist. The
charge in this case is by assault, but this
he evidence fails TO establish, nor would it
sustain the charge under violence. Re-
lersed and remanded. Hurt, ].
Prophet VS.. State; from Shackleford
county. Whereas in this case it is doubtful
rom the face Of the papers the oflense is
charged directly and positively by the dis
riot or county attorney, or whether he
presents the ofiense to the court as acts of
omission or commission constituting the
Iliense, as set out in the affidavit on which
he affidavit is based, the. Information
will be held detective. In other words,
he oiiense must be directly and atiirma-
lively charged by the information. Re.
1ersed and Temanded. Hurt, ].
Lumpkin vs.. Stale, Irom Dosque county.
The question asked the witness was, WAS
he language used by the defendant at said
line USED in such a manner as was calcu-
ated 70 disturb your familyp To which
ne answered, YES" Held, error. That
he witness should have stated facts, the
name Of, and what was said by, and the
Yoiee of, defendant, leaving the question
whether il was calculated 10 disturb TO the
ury. The evidence fails to support the
yeriict. Reversed and remAnded. Hurt,j.
Hough vs.. State; from Falls county.
The prosecution and conviction
vas for falling and refusing TO
% make out and render list of his prop
rty liable 10 taxation in +. county. The
Indictment is fatally defective In that, II
Nowhere alleges the yer for which the list
4 the taxable property should be made
'ut. See 10 c., App. 3l5. Reversed and
emanded. Hurt, ].
McCary W. State; from Bosgue county.
'ermittiug cards to be played IN house
lnder ones control is no offence, unless It
,e a public house, or one in which the
tftute inhibits gaming. A recognizance,
therefore, that recites permitting cards 10
le played in a house under control" OF de-
endant defines no oilense, and on motion
be appeal is dismissed. Per Curiam.
johnson vs.. State; from Mitchell county.
lotion for rehearing IN this case is over
uied, because il gr anted the recognizance as
hown in the exhibit states no Ofiense m
tating that the appellant was convicted
for KEEPING a table for gaming" without
tating that il was used for gaming, and II
be motion was granted, and certi0rari
-anted, the case would have 70 be dis
nissed because Of detective recogniLance.
lotion for rehearing overruled. Per Gu
IAN.
ynopsis Of Opinions 81 the Commissioners
OF AppeaIs-Austia Term, 1sse.
Heaiherly W. Duttou; from NcLeunan