The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-07-06

p certain articles iiAmcu, helu lli'Ul',
Client as not stating the elements di we u-
tense Of theft. Reversed and dismissed
JOSEPH, brnistcr W.. State, from ptoudio
county Appellant was convicted ~ rape,
and punishment assessed ut death, inc
indictment reads that Joseph Brewster
an adult male did rape Mrs. Matte IT, va
Wis, "a female" Held, u detection, an lhdlct
ment IS a written statement oil grahu
Jury, accusing person therein named oil
some act or omission punished by law; Inc
above instrument falling TO DO so Is no
vailed indictment, and the proceedings
hereunder are void. Reversed ana as
missed, Hurt, !.
William Dwyer VS.. State; from Fort
Bend county. Appellant was charged win
murder by killing one II. {, by striking
him with sCantling. The indictment Is
drawn in the exact form of the indictment
presented by the act of March ", loSl'
Held, while we hold that several OF the
forms presented by that act are lnsulhClcht
and invalid, because they do not set form
the acts facts and omissions which cohsli'
mte the oiienses intended to be charged,
we are of opinion that the form prescribed
for murder is not subject TO the objection.
tits very brief, and yet we think 1t contains
every essential fact and element constitute
ing the oitense of murder. Affirmed. Will
son, j.
James Melton VS.. State; from Young
county. Appellant was charged, by intor-
nation, with imputing to female a want
of chastity. The words constituting the
alleged SANDER are not set out in the indict-
ment. Held an information which failed
to set forth, at least substantially, the
words constituting the imputation, is fatally
defective. Reversed and dismissed. Will
son, j.
Mason VS.. State; from Callahan
county. Appellant WAS convicted OF the
theft Of postage stamps. The evidence was
sufficient and the indictment good, and the
case presents the questions: are postage
stamps personal property and subject to
theft, and does this case not come within
the definition of offences against the postal
laws and cognizable only in the Federal
courts. Held, LIST, postage stamps are subject
to theft as personal property. I'd. the state
have authority to try persons for
such ofiienses, Affirmed. Wilson, j.
Wilson VS.. State; from Smith county.
Appellant was convicted OF illegally voting
The indictment is coed, charging clearly
the offense. The evidence is sufficient and
the charge of the court correct The only
material question is as to the refusal OF the
court to admit evidence of other persons
voting at the same time and place as de-
fendant, all of whom were illegal voters,
for the purpose of showing that persons
were voting and allowed to vote promls-
cuously, and thereby defendant was mis-
led as to his qualifications. Held, mad
Affirmed: White, c;,j.
Gaines ct al. VS.. National Exchange Bank
of Houston; from Falls county. The as
sgnment of a cause of action upon which
the Judgment was rendered would carry
with it the right to the judgment on the
principle that the assignment of a par
ticular claim passes to the assignee all the
and liabilities which the asslgnor
had to secure and recover it, though they
were not specifically mentioned in the as
assignee knew at the time OF
the assignment that any judgment
had been rendered upon the note, and the
intention of the parties was that all OF the
interest of the assignor in the debt should
pass by the assignment and rest IN the
assignee. Upon this view it shows that appel
lees had such an interest or right TO theJ udg-
ment as would entitle him TO maintain this
suit; % Tex 473. Reversed and remanded.
Opinion by Watts, com.
Franklin ct al. VS.. Herman; from Calves
,on county. When cases have been pend
ng in the court length of time like the
present case three years. no motion to dis
Miss the appeal will be noticed, unless as to
he question of want of juris-
fiction in the supreme court.
The Judgment against appellants not
being for debt or damages, there is no ne
,essity to make provision for them in the
bond. The transcript of the record from
the comptroller's office was regarded as
nullity by the court below, simply because
some of the entries were in pencil writing.
These entries so written in pencil, not al
letting the main question at issue or being
germane thereto, were immaterial and did
not invalidate the document. Reversed
and remanded on rehearing.
County of Galveston VS.. G. NJ. Noble ct
al; from Harris county. One A. J. Walker
being charged with murder in Galveston
county obtained change of venue to Lib
arty county. He was afterwards granted
bail which was taken in Galveston county.
Not appearing, bail was forfeited. Noble
rs sheriff, collected money on the forfeited
pond. The question presented IS TO what
county does the money collected belong?
Held neither the old or revised Statutes say
n express terms to which county the money
belongs. Under our statute the state pays
Jut limited amout of costs incurred IN
,riminal cases, the county having to bear
he burden of the expense. To recon-
lense the county money collected or for.
cited bail bonds was required 10 be PAID
nto the county treasury. Therefore the
money should be paid into the treasury OF
COUNTY
he money belongs to Galveston county. |
reversed and remanded on reheaTing.
Rogers ct al. VS.. Bradford; from Victoria /
ounty. Although the officer had authority |
O levy on and sell the individual property |
f either X. or o., or their separate inter !
st in property held by them as tenants in |
ommon, yet as he actually levied on and
old the interest of the firm OF II. Il o., and |
$ that firm had no right or interest what /
la. Il
uires nothing. Interest actually offered |
Or sale and sold is the only interest which I
asses by the sale. Reversed and remanded 1
n rehearing.
Eritts VS. Robb ct al; from Wise county. |
his court does not regard as desirable the /
ractice Of submitting motions TO dismiss /
ppcals at the same time that the cases are ,
admitted. Motions to dismiss appeal for |
on-descriptiOn I'm bonds must be taken in /
me, that Il, when the as signment is called. /
f the appeal bond is filed within twenty /
avs after adjournment OF the court at
,hich the judgment was rendered, IL is suf-
Gent, otherwise this court would not have
aud would take notice Of such
lcts itself Motion oyerruled.
Henry Loggins vs.. the State; from Waller
DuDty. On motion for rehearing. Upon
'iirmance Of conviction Of murder IN sec
I'd degree, fifty years I'm the peniteutiary.
ut a single question Is presented in the
BE and exhaustive brief and argument Of
,unsel for rehearing. IL Is that a grave
-ror is contained In the doctrine that a
ise will not be reversed for errors COM
lifted In the lower court in Oyerruling
for cause 10 jurors even though
sfendant exhausted his challenges peremp-
~ unless IL IL further shown that an OBJ
ctionable Juror was forced upon
m. and set upon the case after
? had exhausted his peremptory chHl-
nge In other words that error o. deci-
on az 10 a Jurors qualification is not cured
: tie subsequent exclusion Of the juror
though the prisoner had not exhausted
: challenges even TO the last. Held, that ,
bile we are aware that such q rule pre-
Il Il wrr1l rrft1ad that "a an furrru rIrIfFrf