The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-01-29

son of threats has the right to put the gen
eral character of the deceased in issue
though the defendant has made no sucl
issue. Reversed and remanded. Hurt, j
Kinds VS.. State; from Llano county. II
being testified by the prosecuting witness
that the defendant eXpr ssed to him an
opinion that the animal stolen had beer
taken by Z. and c. to V. county, the de
tendant proposed to prove that he loaned
his horse to the prosecuting witness TO fol
low the alleged thieves. Held, that
the evidence tending to explain the
defendants information was pertinent
and should have been admitted. The
principal witness against the defendant be.
ing confessed accomplice, it was error to
refuse to permit the defendant to show that,
by agreement with the County Attorney,
he had turned States evidence, Shortly be-
fore the stolen animal was missed, accord
ing to States witness f., defendant in
formed him of the horses whereabouts, and
proposed that Il. should take and sell the
horse; and defendant proposed to show by
another witness that he had said before that
| he believed X. knew something about the
horse and intended to obtain his confidence
| by such proposition, in order to ascertain.
Held, That the evidence should have been
admitted. Whatever may be the proper
rule controlling the admissibility of evil
dence of conspiracy to engage generally in
the business of horse stealing, in a trial for
| the theft OF a specific horse, such evidence,
when made by a confessed conspirator, can
carry no force with it unless corroborated.
Reversed and remanded. Hurt, /.
Overstreet VS.. State; from McLennan
county. The indictment charged the bur
glary of this stOre-house of Cleveland Il
Cameron, and the appropriation of one side
Of bacon. The evidence showed that the
defendant entered the cellar of G.. & c. with
out their consent, and after throwing tho
pacon out through q window, secured it
and attempted to escape with it. The
defendant asked the court to charge
that in order to constitute the oflense of
burglary, force is necessary to be used
to effect entrance, though immaterial how
slight such force may be. And if the jury
believed no force was used by defendant TO
make such entrance, if any was made, then
they should find defendant not guilty, or in
the event Of reasonable doubt on such Ques-
ton, defendant was entitled to the benefit
thereof. Held, that the main charge re-
sponded fully to the case as made by the
evidence, and was sufficient, and the re-
lusal Of the charge asked was not error.
Neither bills Of exception nor assignment
Of error are incorporated in the record.
Affirmed. White, p. j.
st. Clair VS.. State; from Lampasas county,
The grounds relied upon in motion to
quash an indictment for perjury, were that
the Indictment did not show by direct
affirmative allegation that the District
Court of l.. county was in session at the
date OF the alleged oiiense; that it does not
show the organization Of the Grand Jury
before whom the perjury is charged to have
been cOmmitted; it does not show the
appointment of ~. as foreman of the Grand
Jury; nor that the Grand Jury was in session
when the oath was administered by said
A. nor when the alleged statements were
made. Held, that the indictment, notwith-
standing, is sufficient to charge the oilense.
Objection to charges should be taken
when given, and allegation in motion
for new trial that the court erred
in the charge, is too uncertain
and vague to elicit examination by this
court, unless the error be fundamental, and
of apparent injury TO the defendant. The
court did not err III admitting in evidence
the records. of the court to show that it was
in session and the Grand Jury organized.
Aft rmed. Hurt, j.
Elsclept VS. State; from Guadalupe
county, An indictment that charges that
defendant did ravish, is equal to an alega-
ton that the rape was effected by force and
against the consent of the female, but
an Indictment that charges an assault
with intent to ravish, but which does not
aver that defendant did rayish, is INSULT
clent To allcge the necessary element of
force to sustain conviction for assault to
rape and carnally know by force Hence
the defendants exceptions to the indict-
ment should have been sustained. judy
ment reversed, and case dismissed. Hurt, /.
Wlnn vs.. State; from Guadalupe county.
The conviction III this case was for Il mis-
of personal property
under the value of $50 The charges given
by the court were erroneous from first to
last, while those asked by defendant were
the proper charges demanded by the case
But the defence failed to except to the
charge as given, rs to the refusal of tn ose
asked. In misdemeanor cases, such pro-
cecdings is necessary to u review by this
court. But the evidence in this case mega
tives, rather than sustains the idea of guilt,
and hence does not sustain the verdict.
Reversed and remandod, Hurt, !.
Allen VS.. State from Fort Bend county.
Upon his trial for hog theft, defendant OBJ.
lected that there was variance between the
proof and the indictment, in that the iudiCt-
mcnt laid the property in James W..
whereas the proof called hm "Jcems" and
Jim Held, that the objection was not
well taken. The Judges explanation to the
bill OF exceptions shows, that being cross
examined, the witness said his name was
James" though he pronounced il
"Jeems.h 1t being proposed to prove by u
witness ON the stand that another witness
who Lad testified for the State was thief,
the State objected aud the court sustained
the objection. Held, not error. Affirmed.
White, p. J.
Hunsuckcr vs.. State, from Hopkins
county. The charging Fart of the inlorma-
ton was that defendant "did the. and there
keep and exhibit, and was then
and there interested IN keeping and exhib.
iting Tor the purpose of gaming, u certain
gaming table upon which the game of pool
was then and there played, contrary, etc"
lho exceptions were substantially that no
ollensc was charged; no description given
OF the table, or ayerinent that the name by
which II was called was unknown, and did
not NEGATIVE tho presumption that defend.
ant had paid an occupation tax. The evi.
donce showed IL to hc u billiard table ON
which pin.pool is ordinarily played Held,
that the Information was sufficient AZ
ilrmed. White, u. /.
Munday vs., State; from Cooke county.
The court charged that IF the defendant
make an assault upon the said Lewis Black.
with intcnt 10 murder him, rs hcreinhclnrc
dcAned to YOU, and 1t should appear from
the evidence that after such assault the
parties were separated, aud after such sep.
aration the said LOWS Black shot ut defend.
ant, you are instructed that such shooting
on the part of Black would not Justify or
excuse the defendant from punishment Tor
the assault he had committed Held, that
the Facts In this ease warranted the charge