The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-19
THE APPELLATE COURTS.
synSpsis Of Opinions of the Court of Appeals,
Tyler Term, 1889

o"uhty. lnga Cdust ID drought DtlOIc
the court upon habeas corpus. Mott
was charged with and held for muir.
der in the court below. Dur
ing the applicants confinement. in Jail he
was called upon by party pretending to
be his friend, and in confidence during the
congregation which he had with this Pre- Pre-
tended friend, Mott admitted his guilt.
This pretended friend. on returning to
town, told lawyer what Mott had
digulged, whercupon the lawyer advised
him to return and, in the pres
ence Of witnesses, get Mott to crimi-
nate himself again. This the pre-
tended friend did. Having procured
witnesses he returned to the jail and again
drawing Mott out got him to give the
thing away" After Mott had proceeded
some distance in his detailed account, wit
ness, remembering the advice given by the
lawyer, warned Mott, and Mott still con-
tinued his story, saying he had killed the
party and he would tell II if he hung for 1t.
On the trial this evidence was admitted
over objection. Held, though in prison,
yet the defendant having been properly
warned and still persisted in telling his
story, II was not error to admit II in evil
donce. Affirmed. White, D. j.
Chapman VS.. the State; from Bexar county.
in The court below he pleaded former ac-
quittal in bar of further prosecution. The
circumstances are similar to the case of
hernandez vs.. the State, supra. The trial
upon which defendant was acquitted was
Tor another and separate oilensc, though
committed Mt the same time and about the
same place. Held, In order to plead success
iully former conviction in bar OF one about
TO proceed, 1t must not only be shown that
~ was for an act committed at the same
time and place. but ii must aiilrmatively
appear that it was for the identical transac-
ton. Affirmed. White, p. j.
Texas Il Pacific railway company vs..
dunn; from Lamar county. Appellee who
IN lived in Paris, Texas, brought suit
Ior the value OF a gin destroyed by fire
whiie IN the possession Of appellant COM
pany. The facts are, that when the gin
arrived at Paris appellant mailed q written
notice TO appelle Its arrival. About ten
DAYS after another notice was sent, and ten
Gays later still a third was sent, all through
the postoilice. Appellant claims such to be
sufficient diligence and notice to appellee
TO change their responsibility to that of
warehouseman. Held. nothing but actual
notice will change the liability from that of
common carrier to that of warehouscman
When appellant proved the sending through
tue mail of the three notices, it devolved on
them to prove tho receipt OF such by appel.
lee. Affirmed. Hurt, j.
Allen vs.. the State from Van Xandt
county. Tit. charging part of the indIct-
ment upon which appellant was convicted
was that Thomas Allen, as shown by
complaint OF > with 'orcc and arms i
did then and there make an aggravated as
sauiI upon the person ? contrary" etc.
Held, the complaint failssto charge the
means constituting the alleged aggravation,
nor does 1t give the required notice TO ap.
Peliant to apprise him of what he was
called upon to answer. Had the words single
quoted been omitted, the information would
not have been defective on the the ground
that Allen was not alleged to have COM
mitted the acts only rs shown by affidavit,
etc Tho complaint is only sufficient to
charge simple assault. Reversed and re.
mandcd. White, p. j.
Cheatham ct al. VS. the State from Van
Xandt county. The scire iacias was as fol. |
lows D." Commanding appellant
to appear and show cause ii any why judg.
ment should not be made final. The court |
say, the statute requiring that the iudg-
nent shall state that the same will no made
hnal, should no good cause be- shown at
the next term why defendant did not APP
pear, mus, be strictly complied with Re-
vcrscd and rcmanded. Hurt, /.
Nxparte Mosely, from Van Xandt county.
Appellant being held for theft of horse
upon the trial before the Justice was re.
CURED to give $500 bond; upon appeal the
bond was reduced to $3.50, but release was
refused, Upon the hearing before the dis.
trct judge applicant attempted TO prove a
purchase ofthc horse from his brother, but
The evidence was not sufficient. The evi.
dence on appeal, however, amply sustains
the Judgment Of the district Judge, and this
hNinp n,irplV "a nj inn nf fact
wllnot be disturbed. Affirmed. Whte,p /,
Garter VS., the State; from Wood county.
Appellant was charged with disturbing re.
Ngious worship, tried found guilty and
fined $25 and costs. The loud talking with
which defendant was charged to have dis
turbcd the congregation, was not such rs
would be classed rs loud talking upon the
public streets, but was sufficiently loud to
have disturbed the assembly. Held, the
evidence amply sustained the charge and
Werc beingno error of which appellant has
Alright TO complain, the judgmen, will be
Affirmed. Wilson. ].
Smith ct al, VS.. the State; from Cherokee
county. In this case the Judgment nis
was nbt rendered according to law in that
Tie Judgment instead of stating that the
judgment nisi would bc made final unless
AT the next term of court good cause was
shown why defendant did not appear, it
slated defendant should appear at the next
ts,m TO show cause why the final Judgment
e1Nuld not he rendered. Collins VS.. State,
Austin term, 1887 Reversed and remanded.
White, y. !.
international 4 Great Northern railway
p Hu,chins from Travis county.
uotchins furnished team and wagon to
ono Smith, Il sub'Coutractor under other
sub.contractors, to build appellants road.
Hcsucd Smith and all other appellants,
including Smith, and recovered Judgment.
smith had no authority TO contract With
AIm so rs TO bind his principal contractors.
Hold while the evidence sustains ap.
Gtice's cause against Smith il must be re.
versed as to all parties, q Joint appeal being
taken. AS Smith had no authority to bind
any Of the principal contractors nor the
company, he alone Is Responsible for the
claim. When work Is done on account of a
Abcontraotor there is no liability on the
pit oil the princinal, "a Texas us. Re.
WTscd and remanded, Wilson, j.
hcrnandes vs.. the State from Bcxar
county. The evidence disclosed that,
upVn the trial, defendant pleaded in bar OF
mrther prosecution that he had been nc,
quilted on a former trial. 1t appears that
the charge OF theft, upon which he was first
acquitted, was for another and distinct of.
tense, and not the one for which he was on
Gial. Held, II must be that he was ncouit.
ted of the identical oilensc for which ho
was on trial, or he cannot avail himself of
1c plea of former acquttal. Affirmed.
Hn T.xns g @, All. u ,,t,..,,,.. An.