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


was placed on trial and convicted. He
rendered in evidence the record of the
trial and acquittal of his CO defendant,
which was rejected. The acquittai of
one Of two charged with conspiracy
must result in the acquittsl of the other,
-and the record of the acquittal of the one
is admissible in evidence upon the trial
of the other; 3 Greenl. Ev. sec. 97l and
where one of several defendants charged
with conspiracy has been acquitted, the
record of the acquittal is evidence TO
another defendant subsequently tried.
! [Whar. Or. L Is ed sec. 1891. The
charge with reference to conspiracy was
erroneous in including the party acquit-
ted, but should have been confined to the
defendant on trial and his remaining
co-defendant. Reversed and remanded.
White, p. j.
Anderson VS.. the state; appeal from
Harris county.-The indictment was for
assault with intent to murder. The
charge Of the court is mainly complained
of on tins appeal; but beyond the fact
that it appears uneXceptionable, it does
not appear that exceptions were taken in
the court below at the proper time.
Malice was properly defined by the court
in its charge, and the evidence is not
against the verdict. Affirmed. Per Gu
riam.
Hardeman VS.. the state appeal from
| Williamson county.-It Is not sufficient
in criminal prosecution that the evil
dence indicate strong probability of
the guilt of the defendant 1t must es-
tablish his guilt beyond mere suspicion
or even strong probability. The record
suggests the probable existence of addi-
oh -,a1
will throw light upon the question of
| guilt or innocence. Reversed and re.
manded-White, z. J.
Breton VS.. the state; appeal from
Bowie cOunty.-The offense charged was
an assault to murder &. J. The main
question turns on the sufficiency of the
verdict which reads as follows "We the
| jury find the defendant guilty of an as
SAINT and attempt TO murder and assess
the punishment Tor two years in the state
pententiary." Held, sufficient. The
evidence is sufficient and the charge is
not erroneous. Affirmed.-Per curtain.
Patterson VS.. the state appeal from
| McLennan cOunty.-It is only when IL ap-
pears to the district judge that the otfense
was committed in an incorporate town or
city, and that there is 4 justice in such
| town or city, that he Is required to trans
| fer to such justice cases over which he
has jurisdiction. ISee c. G. p. art. 1885,
The district judge did nOtknow judicially
that w was Incorporated, or that
there was justice of the peate in
said town, nor was it made so to appear.
The defendants special plea was over
ruled. Playing ut u game of cards In a
public place, and betting at faro are two
separate offenses, and a charge which au-
thOrizes conviction of one upon an in
dictment Tor another is error. Reversed
and remanded.--Willson,J J.
Cook, Kingsbury, Morris and Cald-
well VS.. the state; appeal from
McLennan cOunty.-The indictments
in these cases charged, and the convic
tons were for playing at faro in the city |
OF Waco. The questions which arose |
upon the charge in Patterson VS. the state, |
supra, are not presented in the records, |
but the same proceedings were had upon |
special pleas as to transfers of the cases |
to the Justice from district court. The |
evidence sustained the convictions and |
the charges are sufficient. Atfirmed.-Per |
curtain.
Price ct al. vs.. the state; appeal from |
Eastland county.-That the bond upon |
which the forfeiture was taken was |
not, and had never been signed |
by the principal, is good defence |
ment IN Sc. That the principals |
name was included in the body of the |
bond does amount in effect to a signing. |
There was no writing by the principal of |
his name, or by his authority, in any |
part of the body of the bond, and hence |
1t does not come under the rule laid down |
in Is Tex. pa. The bond was absolutely |
void. Reversed and Observation-Disclosures j. |
Mary Powell, VS.. the state; appeal from |
Robertson cOunty.-lndictment for fornl- |
cation charged Did live to-
gether and carnally know. = Sub |
stantally the charge authorized a cOnvic- |
ton upon proof of carnal knowledge |
erroneous that the charge authorized |
a conviction for acts not charged |
in the information, and that such error is |
fundamental. Reversed and remanded.-l
Hurt, j.
Collins VS.. state; appeal from Callahan
county.-C. Q. p, Art. AL, declares the /
manner in which recognlzances and bail
bonds shall be forfeited, and provides,
among other things, that to be valid u /
Judgment RiSi must estate that the same /
will be made final unless good cause be /
shown at the next term of the court why |
the defendant did not appear.n In this
case the judgment, instead of so stating,
merel, cited defendants to appear at the
next term to show cause why the final
judgment should not be rendered. Judg-
ment HiSi was not rendered in conformity |
TO law. Reversed and remanded.--White.
u. j.
Pinkney VS.. state appeal from Bell
eOunty.--Art. 772, Code Grim. Pro, pro-
yides the rule for the introduction in evil
denCe of dispositions in criminal cases,
and the same rule applies to the admissi-
bility on final trial of written testimony
taken on the examining trial. Oath must
be made OF the existence oil the fact relied
upon as predicate for the introduction of
evidence, though no form is prescribed.
Such predicate was not laid in this
case. The mere fact that one witness
"did not now'' where the absent witness
was, Is not sufficient. Objection to the
evidence should have been sustained.
Reversed and Iemanded.-White, P.J.
McIlhany VS.. the state; appeal from
johnson county. - The prosecution was
Tor keeping dSorderly house, the same
being a common resort for prostitutes
and vagabonds. The evidence shows that
appellant kept saloon wherein beer and
liquors were sold; that prostitutes were
frequently seen in the house, sometimes
drinking aud sometimes not, and that
good reputable people often resorted
there to purchase in beer, etc. Held, to
bring the house within the Inhibition OF
the statute the house must be kept for the
purpose OF prostitution or as a common
resort Tor prostitutes and vagabonds. The
evidence does not sustain the conviction.
Wilson, j.
Garcia VS.. the state appeal from Webb
cOunty.-That he cannot read and write
is made by statute cause for challenge |
of juror except when IL appears TO the
court that tue requisite number of jurors
who can read and write cannot be found
In the county. This provision relates TO the
English language. That the county was
Sparsely populated is no such appearance
OF the fact to the court, and that this. pro-
vision because of the spare population
had been dispensed with, by of a
nraVfAtle Orflar nf the ennrt ia N
ity vested in the trial court. Reversed
and remanded.-Willson,J
John Williams VS.. state appeal from
Smith eounty.-To constitute robbery
the taking of the property must be either
by assault or by violence and putting in
fear of life or bodily injury. In the first
instance. there need be no putting in fear
of life or bodily injury. In the latter
case, !. e. by violence, these elements
must exist. Charge in this case is as
sault, and this the evidence fails to estab-
lish, nor would IL sustain the charge I'M
der violence. Reversed and remanded.-
Hurt. j.
Prophet VS.. state appeal from Shackel-
ford cOunty.-Where, as in this case, il is
doubtful from the face of the papers the
ohense is charged directly and positively
by the district or county attorney or
whether he presents the otfense to
the court as acts Of omission
or commission constituting the
onense as set out in the affidavit on which
the Information is based, the Information
Will be held defective. In other words,