The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-29

"Keno,, Ia one of the Inhibited games. I'm the
absence of A statement of facts, this
can only look TO the suihciency OF the IN
dictment and the correctness oil the}cnarSe'
The indictment is sufficient, and no iunda'
mental error is apparent Affirmed
Linlore VS.. State; from Dallas county
The inuictment charges the defendant with
assault and battery upon his wlle, anu IL
sufiicient for the purpose. Inc charge, as
questions of abstract law must be consider
ed sufficient in the absence OF a statement
of facts For the same reason me motlon
Tor new trial cannot be considered. Al
firmed. Hurt. j.
johnson VS.. State; from Houston county
The indictment charged assault with intent
TO kill A. The only objection urged TO the
conviction is based upon the charge and
the sutiiciency OF the evidence. The general
charge submitting fairly the issue in dis
mute it was not error to refuse special
charge thereon. Though the evidence be-
ing conflicting, the verdict ofthe jury, who
are proper Judges of the credibilty OF the
evidence, will not be interiered with
when the evidence is found sufficient to
support the verdict. Affirmed Wilson, j.
dunbar VS.. State; fom Dallas county.
The indictment was for keeping disor-
derly house, The defense interposed was
tn al il was "hotel." The evidence, how
ever. is conclusive that it was a house of
corIpOn prostitution. That being the
case, the indictment properly charged the
offense and the mere fact that II was by It's
proprietor denominated hotel Will not
prevail as defense. Evidence and charge
are both sufficient. Affirmed. Wilson, j..
Wallace VS.. State; from Wilson county
Indictment charges . 8 s. did permit a
certain game to-wit the game of monte,
to be played in a certain mouse ;n G
house known as the saloon OF said Wallace.
and then and there under the control OF
said Wallace" The indictment fails to
allege that the saloon" is house used for
retailing spirituous liquors or other public
house, or that the table on which the game
was played was exhibited for that purpose.
These are essential allegations. Reversed
and remapded. Wilson, j.
Crosier VS.. State; from Dallas county.
The indictment for the violation of the
Sunday law, charged the sale on that day
of beer and whisky, which was sufficient
Under the sta ute. The evidence sustains
grounds upon which the motion for new
trial is asked are tenable under the evil
dence The Judgment is affirmed. Hurt, ].
Wilson VS.. State; from Wise county. The
notice of appeal was given in this case when
the motion for new trial was, overruled,
which is the proper time, and motion TO
dismiss appeal on the ground that the APP
peal was taken from an interlocutory ludg..
ment is not sustained by the record. Proof
that G.. had the animal in charge and
was taking care of it, and watching
after it on its accustomed range
meets the requirements OF the law us TO
possession; consent of the owner to the TAX
ing must be proved like any other element
ofthe taking. 1t can neither be presumed
or inferred, but may be proved by circum-
stantial evidence. Still it must be proved:
The evidence is not satisfactory. Reversed
and remanded. Wilson, j.
Randall VS.. State; from Waller county.
The defense to an indictment for theft Of II
yearling was based upon a former con-
yiction of the same offense. Such is a
proper issue under proper submission to
be decided by the evidence, and it is not
sustained in this case, Hence, the pro-
ceedings otherwise, and the charges, be-
ing correct, the judgment is affirmed.
Hurt, j.
Scribner VS.. State; from Collin county.
This court entertained jurisdiction of the
appeal in this case at a former day of this
court, because its jurisdiction appeared
clear upon the record. But on rehearing, 1t
appearing by sufficient showing that the
amount involved in the litigation was in
fact below the appealable jurisdiction
of this court, though appearing different
upon the record, this court will grant
a rehearing, and upon the merits
of the question will dismiss the appeal.
ADpeal QlSnlSS eQ. NlllsOll, j.
Beacon VS.. State; from Kinney county.
This is an appeal from the court below on
babeas corpus, bail being refused, and is
before us on motion for rehearing. The judg-
ment below having heretofore been affirmed,
il is adverse to the practice OF TINS court 10
discuss the evidence in such cases. The
court, however recognizes the rules upon
express motion, and questions of practice
stated in Mccoy VS.. State, % Tex, 30;
Dewey VS.. State, 25 Tex, 40; eXparte Fos-
ter VS.. State, CT. App, 625 Motion for
rehearing overruled. Wilson, j.
Foster VS.. State; from Navarro county.
II is shown by the certificate OF the county
clerk that the appeal in this case was with
drawn by the appellant. Upon such show
Tag the Encouragement moves TO dismiss
the appeal to this court, but held that the
appeal could not be withdrawn in the low
er court, after the same had been perfected.
Wherefore, the motion to dismiss is over
ruled. Wilson, ]. :,
Ainsworth VS.. State; from Eastland
county. The conviction in this case
was for the theft of a yearling, the
property of "Bn and the punish
ment awarded, was two years term in the
penitentiary. The evidence disclosing that
the offense was committed in February,
1881. The failure Of the court TO charge
that the proof must show the commission
of the offense within five years next before
the pending of the indictment did not pre-
iudce the defendants. The evidence other
wise is sufficient to sustain the conviction,
and the charge OF the court ample. Al
frmed. Hurt, ].
TAYLOR VS.. State; from Atascosa county.
IL Ia essential TO tue validity ola conviction
that the evidence show a ffadulent intent. !
The evidence in this case shows that the
defendants brand was the same as that
of the injured party, and had been used by
him for fourteen years, and that he took
the animals under claim Of property. |
Under such circumstances the evidence is |
unsatisfactory. The action Of the court in /
Overriding an application for acontinuance |
will not be reversed in the absence of q bill /
Of exceptions, not because OF the unsatisiac-
tory character Of the evidence and the APP /
parent ma.eriality Of the absent testimony, /
ard in the face Of showing Of diligence,
the court below should have awarded a /
dew trial. Reversed and remanded.
saunders vs.. State; from ErAth county.
At former day Of the present term, the
case was reversed, because Of an
apparent error In the charge, upon
circumsfantial evidence, but the perfect
transcript brought BY certiorari, on motion
for rebearing. prescribing q correct charge
on that isvue the motion for rehearing il
sustained, and upon refnvestigation the
Judgment Il affirmed. Hurt, ].
Hancock vs. State; from Lamar county. L
The conviction in this case was for theft Of
a watch, and the punishment awarded was
q Eve years term in the penitentiary. The
conviction vas bad upon purely circum-
rtantial evidence which, however, being
conclusive and credited By the jury. and
the charge thereon being wholly unOblec
fionnble The judgment IL affirmed. Hun, j.
Harris W. state; from Lamar county.
The prosecution In this case was for assault
With Intent % msrder. with punishment Of
rIr YEAR IN the penitentiaYy. The charge I