The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-06-01

for aggravated assault. The uucstio
was whether the retiring of the case fron
1874 to 1881, put in effect the statute O
limitation and barred the prosecution
and upon that issue the court held at
versely to the defendant. In that rulin
1t did not err. Judgment affirmed. =
White, G. j.
Jones VS.: the state; appeal from Cook
county,-The personal conflict out G
which this prosecution grew was bet wee
husband and wife, the evidence teudini
TO show an assault by the wife. Til
jury were charged. among other things
In elect, that the husband had the sam
right to repel an assault by the wife, a,
though she were man, unless he uset
greater force than was necessary. Held
not error. The jury pass upon IN
credibllity and weight of evidence, an,
If there is a sufficiency to sustain thei
verdict, it will not be disturbed. AT
firmed.-Winkler, J.
Petit VS.. the state appeal from Travi
couniy.-The conviction was for thief
OF a horse, and the evidence showed
that the owner pursued and recovered
the animal in Travis county, where Tho
defendant sold her. A motion for con
tlnuance showing want of diligence il
procuring witnesses, and no apparen
truth of the evidence expected 10 b,
made, in connection with evidence ad
duced, the continuance was properly re-
fused. Affirmed.-Per curiam.
Walden VS.. the state from b. owl
county. - The conviction was for th,
burning of the Jail house and court hous,
of Brown county. The refusal to gram
a continuance was not excepted to. and
therefore the action of the court will moi
be revised. The special charge asked
with reference to the abandonment ol
the project was not warranted by the evi
dence, and It's refusal by the court was
not TO the prejudice of the defendant
Affirmed.-White, p. j.
Fitzgerald VS.. the state; from Tarrant
county.-Where, as in this case, il ap
pears that the statement of facts is
neither signed by counsel, nor approved
by the court, it cannot be considered by
this court for anypurpose. Upon sub
mission to the court without the
Intervention of jury, his finding
upon the facts is as conclusive al
that of jury, and will not be disturbed
unless the evidence is directly against the
judgment. Affirmed Per curiam.
Crutchfield VS.. state; appeal from Jack
county.-An indictment for both "keep
ing" and exhibiting" gaming table
are not Implications. Merely asking the
court to read an article of the statute tC
the jury is not equivalent to asking a
charge. And again, the defendant is
required to ask his special charges ia
writing. A bill of exceptions TO testi
mony admitted which does not point out
the grounds of objection is insufficient.
Affirmed White, p. j.
Coggins VS.. state; appeal from Collin
county.-The appellant rented as much
OF the land of the prosecutor as he de
sired for one year, which land was under
fence with other land of the prosecutor
there being no separating fence The
prosecution was for willfully turning.his
horses into the land of another. Under
authority of Taylor on Landlord and
Tenant, sec. 17S, p. 1877, it is held that
in the absence of a contract restricting
his authority over the premises rented,
the defendant cannot be held amenable
to the prosecution upon a showing that
he turned his horses out on the land
rented. Reversed and dismissed. Hurt, J
ia. & A. c. Davenport VS.. Miller Bros;
appeal from Falls county-Distrlct court
rule SO provides, among other things
that. in the preparation of the transcript
for appeal, all of the sheets upon which IL
Is written shall be fastened together at
the upper end with tape, ribbon, or some
thing of the kind, and sealed over the
tie with the seal OF the court. The trans
cript in this case has been prepared in
utter disregard of this rule, and the
motion TO dismiss the appeal is therefore
sustained. Dismissed, per curiam.
King VS.. State; appeal from Falls
county.-The information in this case
charged the appellant with an aggravated
assault. His trial resulted in convic-
tiOn for simple assault, which amounted, d,
IN effect, to an acquittal OF aggravated
assault. Under such circumstances il is
held that, even though the charge OF ag-
gravated assault was erroneous, the de-
fendant was not prejudlced by IL, and
will not be heard TO complain, and IL is
admitted that the facts show simple as
sault. Motion for new trial for newly
discovered evidence, showing no dill
gence is properly oyerruled. Affirmed, +,
per curiam.
Forester VS.. McNult; appeal from
johnson county.-lt Is imperative that
in practice before this court, IN the
preparation and presentation OF APP
peals, that the rules OF practice must
be complied with. The appeal in this
case must consequently be dismissed,
because the assignment of errors was not
filed in compliance with the rules upon
the subject. [See supreme court rule 80,
and district court rule 81; I'd Tex. CT.
app. rep.] Appeal dismissed. Per Gu
riam.
Perry VS.. state; appeal from Falls
~ N nj
victiOn for theft of money. The state,
without objection, introduced the con-
fessiOn OF the defendant. The rules Of
practice In such cases imposes upon the
defense the duty of interposing objection
at the proper time, which, If overruled,
must be brought before this court by
proper bill. This not having been done
In this case, tie action OF the court below
Will not be raised. Affirmed. Per Gu
riam.
sprouse vs.. state appeal from Milan
eounty.-The.convicti in this case was
for burning off the prairie. 1his offense,
as defined by article G67, p. c., consists
in such wilful burning between the first
of July aid the fifteenth OF the succeed
ing February. Reoognizance, there fore,
when fails to allege that the burning was
done between those dates is defective, IN
that IL describes no offense, and, on mo.
LlOD, Iuc hppedl VIII Dt ulbInlbbeug De-
cause of such defect. Dismissed. Per
curiam.
Pearce vs. state from Bosque county,
1t has long been the settled rule of practice
in mlsdemeanor cases that the transcript
to this cout must show affirmatively
that, upon conviction, the defendant
gave notice In open court of appeal TO
this court, and that such notice was gwen
at the proper time. 1t appears from the
transcript that such notice was not given
in this case, and hence the motion to dis
miss must prevail. Appeal dismissed
Per Curiam.
Herschel VS.. state; from johnson
penalty in this case is less
than 500. and likewise the penalty OF the
bond is less than 800. The case origi-
mated in the Justices court, but the APP
peal is from the county court. Motion TO
dismiss Is based upon the grounds that
this court has no Jurisdiction over appeals
from the county court, where the fine and
costs are less than 800, and the case
originated in the Justices court, and that
the appeal, pretending TO be from the
bond, makes no difference. The county
court had no Jurisdiction TO render the
aud the motion is sustained
for want of Jurisdiction. Appeal dis
Curiam.
Commissioner OF Appeals.
Freeman vs.. Brundage; appeal from
Dallas county.-The defense offered in