The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-10-26

i,olfg n rule " Law " this state aud local
custom cannot anbgtn n ftils ~ Law. lie
party selling cannot rive mars perfect 4
title Than he possesses, nnd where one
comes Into possession NJ personal property
aud sells w. though he sells u ~ lfls own
nnd the purchaser dll not Know " 90 not
belong ~ him, yet The purchaser derives
no title. Reversed aud fomandod. White,
flearno Va. tho state, from DO witt
county One Frlar turned his horse out TO
Craze one night and next morning lac was
missing. Following Jim up le found APP.
pellant confined In jail, and Tor what IN not
Known. Upon asking where Ffiar's horse
was, he told but afterwards when the horse
had been found, he said his 1ather-in-law
had snapped the horse 10 him His confess
sion was admitted in evidence. Held the
defendants confession being admitted
without objection, and IL is in con-
nection with the other circumstances
clearly proving his guilt, and there
being nothing in the courts charge
calculated to injure the defendants rights,
the judgement is affirmed. Hurt; j..
Arringtonvs the Statefrom Grimes coun-
ty. The Indictment in this case was attacked,
because it was found alone upon tho con-
fession of appellant. There was no evidence
contradicting the fact that his confessions
were not voluntary and therefore legal.
Held, appellant cannot collaterally attack
an Indictment upon the basis upon which
the grand jury acted in finding IL. Theft,
by actual possession OF property under
false pretenses, may be shown ur der an
ordinary theft. Indictment affirmed. Will
son, j.
Weight VS.. the State; from Tarrant
county. Appellant was convicted in the
court below of THEFT, upon Joint or sepa.
rate indictment (Which is not snow by the
record), and with one Sweizer. The evil
dence presented as against appellant only
a case of strong suspicion. Sweizer being
tried separately was found not guilty. APP
pellant being convicted in mis- motion for Il
new trial offered the affidavit OF Sweizer,
which affidavit explained all the suspicious
culpatory facts. The court refused a new
trial. Held, the case presenting as against
appellant only one OF strong suspicion, and
the affidavit containing facts explaining all
suspicious connections OF appellant, new
trial should have been granted. Reversed
and iemanded. Hurt, j.
Broadway VS.. CleppeI; rom Milan county.
Judgment having been recovered against
Chopper and his trustees or claimants, Hick
and Hale, Clepper appealed and gave Hale
one Scarborough as sureties ON appeal
bond, which described the judgment only
as against Clepper. A motion to dismiss
the appeal was made in the county court,
but 1t was overruled. Held, the coanty
court erred in refusing to dismiss the ap-
peal, the bond not only falling to describe
the judgment, but only having one surety,
Hale beng a principal to the Judgment re,
covered in the justice court. Reversed and
remanded. Hurt, j.
Preston VS.. tile State; from Dallas county:
Appellant in the court below was convicted
of horse.theft and sentenced to five years
On the trial Lucas, from
whom the horse was stolen, proved
property and the theft by APP
pellant was easily proven. There is
nothing Objectionable in the charge of the
court, which is full, lair ana impartial re-
view of the law applicable to the case, and
there is otherwise no error of which ap-
pellant can justly complain; the Judg-
lnent is therefore affirmed. Wilson, j.
Rean VS.. the State; from Tarrant county.
When appellant was tried in thu examining
court the evidence of one Mosely, from
whom be was charged with and convicted OF
stealing by robbing him of $40 and gwen
ten years in the penitentiary, was reduced
TO writing, properly signed and approved
by the Judge in accordance with the re-
luirements of the CODE When the case was ,
called in the district court the State by atfi-
iavit and oral testimony proved the alb
sence of Mosely in Arkansas, and offered in
evidence the written testimony, which was
over objection. Held, the proper
predicate being laid, it was admissible to
put in evidence the written testimony OF
The absent witness. Affirmed. Wilson, j.