The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-20
COURT DECISIONS.
synopsis of Opinions Of the Court Of Auueo

synopsis OF Opinions of the Court Of Appeals.
Foster VS.. State; from Navarro county.
1t is shown by the certificate Of the county
clerk that the appeal in this case was with
drawn by the appellant. Upon such show.
ing the attorney general moves to dismiss
the appeal to this court, but held that the
appeal could not be withdrawn in the low.
rcourt, after the same had been perfected.
wherefore, the motion to dismiss is over.
ruled. Wilson, j.
Ainsworth VS.. State; from Eastland
county. The conviction in this case
was for the theft of yearling, the
property of "Bn and the punish
ment awarded, was two years term in the
penitentiary. The evidence disclosing that
the onense was committed in February,
1881. The failure Of the court to charge
that the proof must show the commission
OF the oilense within five years next before
The pending of the indictment did not pre-
Judice the defendants. The evidence other.
wise IS sufficient to sustain the conviction,
and the charge of the court ample. AT
trmed. Hurt, j,
Taylor VS.. State; from AtascOsa county.
IT is essential to tue validity of a conviction
that the evidence show a fraudulent intent.
The evidence in this case shows that the
defendants brand was the same Us that
OF the injured party, and had been used by
him Tor fourteen years and that he took
the animals under q claim of property.
Under such circumstances the evidence is
unsatisfactory. The action of the court in
ogerruling an application for continuance
will not be reversed in the'absencc of bill
OF exceptions, not because of the unsatisfac-
tory character of the evidence and the APP
parent ma eriaity of the absent testimony,
and in the face of showing of diligence,
the court below should have awarded a
dew trial. Reversed and remanded.
Wilson, /.
Saunders VS.. State; from Erath county.
AT a former day of the present term, the
Judgment of conviction in this
case was reversed, because of an
apparent error in the charge, upon
circumstantial evidence, but the perfect
transcript brought by certiorari, on motion
for rehearing, prescribing correct charge
on that issue, the motion for rehearing is
sustained, and upon reinvestigation the
Judgment is affirmed. Hurt, j.
Hancock VS.. State; from Lamar county.
The conviction in this case was for theft OF
a watch, and the punishment awarded was
u five years term in the pententiary. The
conviction was had upon purely circum-
stantial evidence, which, however, being
conclusive and credited by the jury, and
the charge thereon being wholly unobjec.
tionable, the judgment is affirmed. Hurt, ].
Harris VS.. State; from Lamar county.
The prosecution in this case was for assault
with intent to murder, with punishment OF
six years in the penitentiary. The charge
of the court presenting fairly the issues OF
law and of the evidence, there was no
error in refusing additional charges asked,
which were covered by the general charge.
Affirmed Hurt.
Fender VS.. State; from Lamar county.
Article 1885, Rev. s., prescribing legal
holidays, does not have the effect to sus-
pend the proceedings of the courts on those
days. That statute in relation to all judi.
cial proceedings, is merely permissve, al.
lowing the courts to observe those DAYS II
they see proper TO do so. The evidence re.
jected by the court in this case was irrele-
want and immaterial and its rejection was
not error. Affirmed. Wilson, ].
Chadwick VS.. State; from Washington
county. The evidence being sufficient tc
show that the deceased was conscious o
approaching death and entertained no hopt
of recovery, and the other requisites quail
flying dying declarations as evidence they
were properly admitted; whereas in thil
case the confession of the defendant |.
shown by the evidence to have been volun
/ tary, made without compulsion and ut {
time when not under duress, II is properly
admitted. Affirmed. Hurt, J.