The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-06-08
Court OF Appeals.


Court OF Appeals.
Scott VS.. state; appeal from Hopkins
county.-Where, as in this case the de-
tense relies upon certain statements made
by him prior to trial, in order to contro-
vert the presumption of his guilt. the
truth of such statements becomes a le-
Ultimate question in issue. In this case
no effort to prove the alleged statements
was made. The charge is ample and re.
sponsive to the case. Affirmed.-Per
curtain.
Dawson VS.. state; appeal from Lamar
county.-The court charged that deadly
weapon is one calculated to produce
death or serious bodily injury, or where
the injury inflicted is OF a serious bodily
character. Held. that such is not an er-
roneOus definition. In other respects
the charge in this case was wholly unOb-
jectionable. Atfirmed.-Per curiam.
Geo. Dawson VS.. state; appeal from
Travis county.-The granting of even a
first continuance Is contlded to the sound
discretion of the trial court, and its order
thereupon will not be revised except in
case of abuse. In this case total want of
diligence in securing witnesses is appa-
rent, and the court did not err in refus-
ing continuance Affirned.-Per curtain.
Taylor VS.. state; appeal from Dallas
county. - The Information charges
the appellant with breaking and tear
ing down fence. The recOgni-
Zance describes the offense AS ma
lleiOus mischief. The attorney gen.
eral means to dismiss because the re-
eognizance does not describe the ottense
charged nor an Otfense known to the law.
Held that the motion Is well taken and
the appeal is dismissed.--Per curIam.
Marsalis vs.. Boyd ct al; appeal from
Ellis eounty.-Au attachment bond is re-
CURED to be IN double the amount of the
debt due. De miRiMUS non eUrdt iSr does
not apply when the extraordinary harsh
remedies are resOrted to. Affidavit for
attachment which stated that the debt
was due the attorney of, and not the
plaintiti, was properly quashed. Affirmed.
Per curtain.
Robinson vs.. the state; appeal from
Ellis county.-The record discloses that
the statement of facts was not filed until
after the adjournment of court, and it
shows no order properly taken authOriZ-
Ing its subsequent filing. Under such cir
cumstances the statement cannot be con-
sidered. The proceeding OF the trial APP
pear otherwise regular. Aflirmed.-Per
curiam
from Lamar county.-The charge
asked and refused was in
substance that If the defendant and the
assaulted party were brother and sister,
and their father and mother were dead,
that she was minor. and the defendant
was head of the family and struck her in
a moderate manner to correct her, then
the jury should find for the defense. was
a charge which should have been given
in a modified form. Reversed and re-
manded-Hurt, j.
Lindsay VS.. the state; appeal from Van
Zandt cOunty.-The conviction in this
ease was for burglary of the drug store.
The bills of exception reserved to the ac-
ton of The court upon the questions in
volved appear to have been filed after
adjournment of court, and consequently
cannot be considered on appeal. Affirm
ed.---Per curtain.
Harris VS.. state; appeal from Tarrant
county lin u prosecution for theft from
the person the only question involved
was the admissibllity in evidence of the
confessions of the defendant. The con-
fession was not that the defendant, but
that one G. took the property, and and as
such was admissible. Aftirmed.---Per
curtain.
W. NJ. Denman VS.. state; appeal from
Travis eOunty.---These are appeals in
three cases for theft of animals, and the
ground relied upon in each is alleged
ance for six different witnesses to prove
purchase OF the animals. The evidence,
If accessible, is not probably true, and
the defendant did not, when first arrest
ed, explain his possession of the stolen
animals. Atirmed.--Per curtain.
White VS.. the state; appeal from
Travis county. The convlc-
ton was for theft from the
Texas express company OF certain prop
- Il D.nN kA N-A fail Ia tn
bring up a statement of facts. Conviction
of theft from a corporation will not be
disturbed because of the failure of the
state to allege and prove the proper name
of the company when that defense was
not made below and could only be aseer-
tanned on appeal by reference to private
acts of the legislature. Affirmed.-Per
curtain.
5liford VS.. state appeal from Hop
kins county.-In this case the defense re-
lies upon the insutficiency of the evidence
to secure reversal. But it is disclosed
by the record that when arrested the de-
PENDANT had some of the stolen clothes on,
and the evidence is deemed amply suf-
tieient to-support the verdict. Affirmed. .
Per curtain.
Stroud VS.. state; appeal from Clay
county.-ObjeetiOns that the trial judge
signed neither the general nor the special
ment is sufficient, the charges correct and
the evidence ample to sustain the finding
of the jury, the judgment is affirmed
Per curtain.
Leach VS.. the state; appeal from Cooke
county.--It appears from the record that
upon motion the court below reduced the
bail bond from $4,000 to $1,000. The re-
cord fails to bring up statement OF facts.
Under such circumstances this court
Al. -.
was correct. Cost of appeal against ap-
pellant affirmed.-Per curtain.
B!alock VS.. the state; appeal from Ellis
county-The otfense defined in art. III is
the unlawful taking up and using an es-
tray without complying with law, and
recognizance that omits the words
'staking and using" fails to describe the
offense, and motion to dismiss therefor
must prevail. Motion dismissed.-Per
curtain.
- Langan, Sr., VS.. Carr; appeal from La
mar county.-The judgment being in fact
against L., Sr., L., Jr. and another, an
appeal bond which ascribes it as against
L., ST., Is fatally defective, and the appeal
bond is otherwise insufficient in that it
is signed by but one surety. Appeal dis
missed.-Per curtain.
McCaleb VS.. the state; appeal from
Montague county.-Where the gen.
eral charge of the court sufficiently
covers the law of the question
upon which special charge is asked,
refusal of the special charge ia not error,
Nor have counsel in this case undertaken
to point out wherein the special charge Is
erroneous. The conviction was for ag-
gravated assault. Affirmed.-Per curtain.
Billings VS.. the state; appeal from Dali
las county.-Under proper construction
OF articles S4I, S51 and $50, of the code Of
criminal procedure. the defendant in a
misdemeanor case is required to enter
into Iec9gnizance at the term of the court
at which the conviction is had, and if en-
tered into after adjournment of such
term, motion to dismiss the appeal will
prevail. Appeal dismissed.-Per curtain.
Walton VS.. the state; appeal from Dallas
county.-The transcript mast show affirm
atively that the defendant in q INSIDE
meanor case, upon his conviction, entered
into recognizancs, or that he is in GUS
t0dy. In default of such showing. an ap-
peal will be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
Per eurlam.