The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-15

Taylor Va. Martin; from Clay county.
This was suit brought by NJ.
against T. upon account, aud
which by the parties upon agreement
under the statute, was submitted to orDi-
| traiion. Article 81 of the Revised Statutes
expressly provides that If the right OF ap-
| neal Is not expressly reserved III the orig,
nal agreement to arbitrate, no such right
shalt exist nut the decision OF the nrbi-
traitors shall be final The original agree.
men, in this case, as brought up by the
record, disClosCs no such agreement, aud
TN. motion to dismiss the appeal Is sus-
tanned. Appeal dismissed, Per curtain.
one -. state; from Brown county.
.nM q conviction for theft OF plow
wherein the punishment assessed was by
fine OF 800 aud Two hours confinement III
the county i.ul, the plaintiff appeals, III
sisting upon error in the charge OF the
court, ana that the punishment affixed is
cruel and unusual. Held, that the prop
erty stolen being under the value OF so,
the court did not err in charging the prose
cution barred in two years, and that the
punishment assessed is not cruel ana I'M
usual. Affirmed. Per curtain.
RadliN VS.. State; from San Saba county.
The conviction in This case was. for the THEFT
of horses, with term of five years award
ed as punishment. The defendants appli-
cation for continuance for absent testl-
nony was refused. | is held, that while ii
IS true that the granting OF even ilrst con-
tinuancc is committed to the. discretion OF
the court yet II upon CONVECTION tie appil-
cation otherWlse CONFORMING W sIaCute ~
showing diligence, etc, the absent
evidence appears. in connection
with that adduced, TO be material to the
defense, and that 1t Is probably true, the
court below should grant a new trial. The
record discloses such state OF lactS, anu pc
cause new trial was lelused, the JuuSlieh'
is reversed ana the cause Iemahueo'
White, 2. J.
bostlGN, vs. state rom Goiolauo couii Ivy !,
The objection urged IN TINS case was tiat
the general charge OF the court 10 Ihe July
failed to instruct them Iuly as 10 Vie law
upon the question OF feasohaole 90, dou do
But 1t appears from the recoro lhaG Tue ue-
/ PENDANT asked OF the court d speclaL charse
upon the sublect Whlch properly eApoun ,1t
ed the law, Which was gwen ny Ile co't H.
Helu' that the failure Vi 5cIieIat GLsiis &c VI
cover the point was cured by inc sPeclll
charge asked and gwen, ana tne oDJectloh
Is not wen taken. Alllrheu' Ief GU
riam. c.
Denlson " racine railway et al VS.: ony
der " SlaVen; from Cooke county. ~ IS us.
closed by record IN ms case tnat Lhe dllot'iV
involved IS less IMAM Ply. ouch peiiis tite
case, the Judgment pelGW was GoI "a. =, g
want OF Jurls3lctlon ny .Vhls COURT Appear
dismissed. Ier cullai u; .,, Tho
Kay VS.. etatei from hinney c9ulty, tne
money winch Is alleseu W n'iNe oeeii so w
~ Is alscI1seu was inoe2 WIN VI, t.o,s
chahce. hAateNef may na,e oeeA' t tio as
atteiiuliiS .o e,h III frop, n,IStody
cape oi tne ,,.d, ,rat,;n,,s rItIin -,
peho'Hs ils "ppea, % ~
Oh IhlS cotI q Dr..
L
~, oiiith vs.. otase, noNi oa,'s No Ivy
d i,,o 80 c'ont IN enston the verdict
uehce was sulGieLt W sustain 1ile ~
tho st'.'3 IL. Yoo,,,so tLo
seseloiis VI snt 6,S ooo,ISa H. re
,, 30 "an e., Co.. rt 100 ar reosonahle
Mas ~ oIU''S,o .o 49, 90, notit iorcsnu
.'ou .; p1 Wv 6r %n rdn, oyarrTJad'
i I,nhnI; ~ rof,Isnd Por n,rion,
I'eFeariig aeiI i ~, Stato. fr"n Ton, C,reen
hepPleI MA ~ ai'; ,,, 49, ~ ~ n',se was
County. ny J"riniIlO+s ri 18Th and
81 t,5 ipspiL tba ind,,nont os
Sne appe''l ooi,. n.aj Nv. S,r o. TIE
ilaNtiS Voe diI;ss ,6a orirooi 10 bosed pnon
" iii TX ;rdoment r,ight
tue GTuIlllu Ihat mntie vi s.iic, H.
nave ueeii ue'Si 80 n',t T. o,,st onraar
but that having sel ~ ouC ~ must aPp t
GorleCt. uelu, lha' tile rati"GN~ - ~
daIe constitutes iIlisuescll W ~ ~
judgment, lor which tne apPed, iuuSS ~, ~
dismissed. Appear uisIiitsSe1 81 NT;aabnI
burns " Jordah vs.; D5uy, lolli ht'Cn nv
county Arlcie 4ooI "a Wy IeNlseo st .a
utes provides, among otheF thlhSs, tnas t she
citation IN error shall state the GATE OF the
ming OF the PellIioh IN error VIC ii..lies VI
the parties according to such petition, the
description OF the judgment Us theIeia gwen
The citation IN TINS case, ~ appears rom an
inspection OF the record, Is latallY ueleetNe
in not conforming 10 the article clteGi anu
the motion 10 dishiiss 'he wrIG VI ; ellI'
must prevail. VIII OF error ulsihIsseu'
Per curam.
Fudge VS.. State from Brown county,
The prosecution was Tor unlaWlnl carrying
of pistol. In the absence OF statement
of facts and of bills OF exception ana U!
charge Of the court, this cOur; can examine
only the indictment, anu IL ms case Is
found sufficient. Affirmed. Per curlam,
big Annie vs.. state; rom Cooke
county. The prosecution and .convlctlon
was for keeping a disorderly house, a4u
as the transcript SHOWS there Was
no exception reserved 10 the charge
when Il was given under our rules, there Is
error in the charge unless the same IS
brought before the court upon bill.
Affirmed. Per curlam.
Thompson VS.. State; from Grayson coun,
ty. The defense relied upon was directed
to the jurisdiction of the court TO- try one
for THEFT OF horse IN the lndlan lerrItoryi
the evidence showing that it was there
taken by he defendant ard brought into
Grayson county, and there reversed. Held,
that the district court Of Grayson county
had jurisdiction TO try the case. Affirmed.
Per curtain. -
Lem Freeman VS.. state; from Grayson
county. IL is not apparent from the record
that the court in refusing the application
for continuance abused the discretion
with which IL is clothed by statute, nor by
the evidence adduced that the absent
testimony is accessible, was probably true,
and these facts must appear 70 authorize an
appellate court in interfering with such
action of the court. Affirmed. Per curlam.
Winiree vs.. state; from Brown county;
In prosecution for the unlaNlul
carving of a pistol il was shown