The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-10-26
rnn ArrnLLArr oolnfa
synopsis ~ Opinlons NJ ihe couft ~ Appesis
Ttier Term, 1888

synopsis ~ Opihi0ns title r0uft ~ ppcsie'
Tyler Term, 1889
Ex pafle, Jesse Moit from Naoogdoches
county. THIS cause Is brought before
the court upon .habe7s corpus. Mott
was charged with aud held for muir.
dor In the court below Dur.
ing the applicants confinement. In jail he
was called upon by q party pretending 70
be his friend aud IN confidence during the
conversation which he had WITH THIS pre-
tended friend, Mott admitted his gullt
This pretended friend on returning TO
lown. told q lawyer what Mott had
diyulged, whercupon the lawyer advised
| him to retrrn and, in the pres
enco of Witnesses, get Mott to crimi-
nate himself again. This tho pre-
tended friend did Having procured
witnesses he returned to the jail and again
drawing Mott out got him to give the
thing away" After Mott had proceeded
some distance in his detailed account, wit
ness, remembering the advice givea by the
lawyer, warned Mott, and Mott still con-
tinlied his story, saying he had killed the
party and he would tell it if he hung for it.
On the trial this evidence was admitted
over objection. Held, though in prison,
vet the defendant having been properly
warned and still persisted, in telling his
story, it was not error to admit 1t IN evil
dence. Affirmed. White, y. ].
| Chapman VS.. the State;from Bexar county.
When appellants case was called for trial
| in the court below he pleaded former &C.
quittal in bar OF further prosecution. The
circumstances are similar TO the case OF
Hernandez VS.. the State, supra. The trial
upon which defendant was acquitted was
| for another and separate oilense, though
committed at the same time and about the
same place. Held in order TO plead success
| fully a former conviction in bar OF one about
TO proceed, it must not only be shown that
| it was for an act committed at the same
| time and place, but it must affirmatively
| appear that it was for the Identical transac-
ton Affirmed. White, p. j.
Texas g. Pacific railway company VS..
Gum; from Lamar county. Appellee VINO
in lived in Paris, Texas, brought SUIT
for the value of n gin destroyed byrhfe
while in the possession Of appellant COM
pany. The facts are, that when the gin
arrived at Paris appellant mailed written
notice to appelle of its arrival. About ten
days after another notice was sent, and ten
DAYS later still q third was sent, all through
the ost-otfiGe. Appellant claims SUCH 10 De
sufficient diligence and notice to appellee
to change their responsibility 10 that OF
warehouseman. Held; noghliig pu1 dctuai
notice will change the liability from that OF
common carrier TO that of warehouseman;
When appellant proved the sending through
the mail of the three notices, 1t devolVed on
them to prove the receipt OF such BY appel
lee Affirmed. Hurt, j.
Allen VS.. the State; from Van Handt
county. The charging part OF the indlct,
ment upon which appellant was Gonvlc'eu
was that Thomas Allen, 'as shown by
complaint of g - with orce and arms
did then and there make an aggravated as
sarlt upon the person - IL contrary" etc.
Held. the complaint fails to charge the
means constituting the alleged aggfaVatlon,
nor does il give the required notice 10 APP
pellant to apprise him OF what he was
called upon to answer. HAD tne words single
quoted been omitted, the information would
not have been defective on the the ground
that Allen was not alleged to have COM
mitted the acts only rs shown by affidavit,
etc. The complaint is only sufficient to
charge simple assault. Reversed and re-
manded. White, p j.: ~
Cheatham ct al VS.. the state from van
Zandt county. The sclre lacias was as loi-
lows: - Commanding appellant
to appear and show cause il any why judg-
mcnt should not be made final. The court
saw. the statute requiring that the JudS-
ment shall state that the same VIII be made
final, should no good cause be shown at
the next term why defendant did not ap-
pear must be strictly complied with. lie
yer cd and remanded. Hurt
lex parte Mosely, from Van Zandt county.
Anpellant being held for theft of horse
upon the trial before the justice was re-
ouired to give $500 bond; upon appeal the
bond was reduced to $3.50, but release was
refused Upon the hearing before the dis
trict Judge applicant attempted to prove
purchase of the horse from his brother, but
the evidence was not sufficient. The eyi-
dence on appeal, however, amply sustainS
. Il iat,.i OF N lYn
ngpurely question OF fact, his ruling
will not be disturbed. Affirmed. White, p J.
Carter VS.. the State; from Wood county.
Appellant was charged with disturbing re,
ljeious worship, tried, found guilty and
fined S25 and costs. The loud talking with
which defendant was charged to have dis
turbed the congregation, was not SUCH as
would be classed as loud talking upon ine
public streets, but was sufficiently loud TO
have disturbed the assembly. Held the
evidence amply sustained the charge and
there being no error of which appellant has
a right to complain, the Judgment Will be
affirmed. Wilson. ].
Smith ct al. VS.. the State; from Cherokee
county. In this case the judgment nisl
was not rendered according To law IN that
The Judgment instead Of stating that the
in gment nisi would be made final unless
nj the next Term of court good cause was
shown WHY defendant did not appear, II
stated defendant should appear At the next
term O show cause why the final judgment
ahould not be rendered. collins vs. state,
Austin term, 1887 Reversed and remanded.
International e. Great Northern railway
yz uutchins; from Travis county.
Hu.chins furnished a team and wagon TO
one Smith, a sub-contractor under other
sub-contractors, TO build appellants road.
He sued Smith and all other appellants,
including Smith, and recovered judgment.
Smith had no authority to contract WIFE
him ~ as 10 bind his principal contractors
Held. while the evidence sustains APP
r,ellee's cause against Smith it must be re-
yersed as TO all parties, joint appeal being
taken. As Smith had no authority TO bind
any of the principal contractors nor the
company, he alone is responsible for the
claim. When work Is done on account OF
sub-contractor there is no liability on the
part OF the princinal; % Texas, 2lS. Ke-
versed and remanded. Wilson, J.
Hernandez VS.. the State; from Bexar
county. The evidence disclosed that.
upon The trial, defendant pleaded In bar OF
tirtber prosecution that he had been ac-
quilted on q former trial. II appears that
the charge of theft, upon which he was hFst
acquitted, was for another and distinct Of
tense, and not the one for which be was on
trial. Held, Il must be that be was acquit- !
ted Of the identical offense for which he
was on trial, OF he cannot avail himself OF
the plea Of former acquittal. Anrmed.
Hurt, |.
Texas & st. Louis Railway vs.. Allen ct al; |
from Smith county. The jurisdiction, OF
the court Is settled BY the statute granting |
the lien upon road-beds, etc. The hen |
when giyen Is on 80 much Of the road bed |
and equipments only as will satisfy the
debt for which Il IL given. Acts 1873, sec |
ton I, gives a lien 70 mechanics, laborers
tffualiv performed BY them and for wages /
lue or owing 20 them. The foreman or
who remains with vOrkmen.
directing the work and sometimes working, /
h a laborsr under the statute. The time
checks for labor performed upon a railway, /
together with the lien, is transferable. /
(Tetas 4 Pacific Railway Company vs.. Mo
Mullen; Austin term, ISL A person c.n-