The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-08
COURT DECISIONS.
Synopsis OF oplploos Of Court OF hppo"'
Austin Term, 1889

prcpation assembled for religious worship,
is an ofIense especially named by stat
ute, wherein the essential element Is that
the act was committed wilfully, When the
recognizance on appeal then fails to de-
scribe the oiIense as "a willful," disturb
ance of a congregation assembled for re
ligious purposes, it is detective and 1t does
not under our law describe an oilense
Hence the appeal is dismissed. . Per Gu
riam.
Morgan VS.. State; from Brown county
The conviction of the appellant herein wal
for burglary, and the penalty assessed wal
three years in the penitentiary. But upon
a careful and considerate inspection OF th'
record it is developed that not only thu
charge was not excepted to at the time i
was given, as is necessary, but it was no
even complained of in the motion for new
trial. Neither was there any exception t
the refusal of the court to grant continu
ance. Under such state of circumstance
the Judgment can but be affirmed and IL il
so ordered Affirmed. White, p. J.
Texas ~ Pacific railway company VS.
Williams; from Grayson county. Unde
% Tex, 535, we hold that one of seyera
joint owners cannot maintain suitto re
cover his undivided half interest in prop
erty destroyed, and the meas
ure of damages for such property Sc
destroyed is the actual market price OF thu
same at the place where and the time whet
destroyed. These issues being raised by
the evidence on the trial, the court erred II
failing 20 submit them to the jury Tor thel
consideration, wherefore the judgmen
must be reversed and remanded, and I
is so ordered. Reversed and remanded
White N
Taylor & johnson VS.. State; from Travis
county. Where, as il this case, 1t appears
affrmatively from the record that the
charge complained of in this court was moi
complained of nor excepted to i'll the cour
below, nor proper charges on the questions
in issue asked by the complaining partie!
at the proper time, this court under IT.
rules of practice cannot review the action
the court below, and as such IS the case
herein shownthe judgmentwlll be ailrmeu
White, p.j.
Dyer VS.. State; from Montague county
The appellant was prosecuted in the court
below for assault with intent to murder,
but on the trial was convicted ofaggravated
assault. The vital question raised Is
whether the returning of the case from 1874
to 1881 put into operation and effect the
statute of limitation and barred the prose
cution, and upon this issue the court below
held in the negative. This court holds that
the court below did not err, and the judg-
ment is therefore affirmed. White, p.j.
Petit VS.. State from Travis county.
The appellant was convicted in the court
below of the theft of a horse, and
the evidence showed that the owner had
pursued the thief and recovered the ami
NAL in Travis county which the defendant
below had sold here. A motion for contin.
uance was made and overruled, because of
the failure to show diligence in procuring
witnesses and the want of sufficient show
ing of the probable truth of the evidence
expected to be produced, viewed in the light
of that already adduced. Under these facts
this court holds that no error was commit
ted on the trial and atfirms the judgment
Affirmed.
Weldon VS.. State from Brown county
The conviction of the appellant in the
court below was for the burning of the jail
house and courthouse of Brown county.
The court refused a motion for continu-
ance, which action the appellant did not
except to; consequently, he cannot ex-
pect action of this court upon it. The
special charge asked by the appellant on
the abandonment of the project was not
warranted by the evidence, and its refusal
by the court was not to the prejudice of the
defendant; consequently there was no error
ofwhich appellant can complain. Affirmed.
White, p
Fitzgerald VS.. State; from Tarrant
county. The failure to sufficiently show,
as in this case, that the statement is neither
signed by counsel nor approved by the
court, will not permit this court in consid-
ering them for any purpose. Upon the sub
mission of case to the court without the
intervention of jury, the finding of
the court upon the facts is as con-
elusive as that of n jury, and
will not be disturbed by this court unless
the evidence clearly shows error, and is di-
rectly against the judgment. Affirmed.
Per curiam.
Crutchtield VS.. State; from Jack coun-
ty. An indictment which charges both
the keeping and Exhibiting" gaming
table is not duplicitous. Merely asking the
court TO read an article of the statute to the
Jury is not equivalent to asking a charge.
And besides, the defendant is required to
ask his special charges in writing. A bill
of exceptions to testimony adduced that
fails to point out the grounds of objection
to insufficient. Affirmed. White, p.
Solomon VS.. State; from Montague
county. However correct they may have
have been as abstract principles of law, an
inspection of the original information,
which is brought us in the record, discloses
the tact that il is not amenable TO the objec-
lions urged against it. The statement OF
facts appears TO have been filed more than
.
and cannot he considered for any purpose
on appeal Affirmed. Per curtain.
johnson VS.. State; frem Kendall
county. The conviction in this case was
for murder in the first degree with a life
sentence in the penitentiary. The affidavit
of the sheriff holding the defendant in Gus
tody pending this appeal, certifying his es-
cape from custody, this appeal, under the,
statute, must be dismissed, Appeal dis
missed. Per curiam.
Montgomery vs.. State; from Cooke
county. Where the evidence upon a con-
yiction has been secured, falls short of
that conclusive nature, necessary TO estab-
lish an intent on the part Of the defendant
10 commit the offence of which he has been
convicted, II falls short of establishing a
necessary element Of crime, and does not
sustain a verdict Of conviction. The facts
and circumstances In evidence in this case
20 far 20 deprive the transaction OF Grim
inal intent. Reversed and remanded.
Render VS.. State; from Lamar county.
The record falling 20 show an order per
hitting the filing OF the statement Of facts
aiter the adjournment Of court, the state
ment 30 filed cannot be considered. The
facts charged against tie service Of the in
dictment on defendant are not authenti.
Gated and beyond that, the charges are
found correct. Affirmed. Per curiam.
BOvden vs.. State: from Hood county.
Error In changing the venue j. not available
bF plea 70 the Jurisdiction Of the court 30
which the case has been transferred. EK-
ception must be taken IN the tribunal by
which lie change was ordered. (sCtApp.,Ll
The 4'order Of the Judge grantinggr refusing
a change Of venue shall not n reversed,
unless the facts upon which the same was
basrd are presented in a bill Of exccptions
urrparpd. signed. approved and filed al the
Term of tbe cOurt al which said order was
made fCC. p. 50 Tberec0rd Disclose
no other point Of moment. Affirmed.
Whit, p.j. fAppellant was indicted WITH
fhs Nyez boys. and in his case a life term
was assessed-
Euchanock ". State; from Robertson
county The conviction was TOR a misde-
rneauor, and the penalty Assessed 81 n hrr
q 500 The &c, &C.. "a % show ssiis.ae eri.y