The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-07-06
InhNnlinfa
Synopsis of the Decisions ~ tho Court ~
Appeais.

Hodfequez w. State, froa Webb county
Conviction for burglary. The indictment
for burglary must hllege the particular iel.
ony intended TO be committed, AMI such
felony must be described with oil us statu-
tory ingredients. A general charge that
the entry was with the intent TO commit n
felony, OF that It was with the intent to
commit any named felony without descrlb-
ing that felony by setting forth its con-
stituent elements Is insufficient - Tex,
AZ; IL Tex, 0s; Al Tex, 237; Ct, App, I'll,
Reversed and dismissed. WILSON, ].
Houston & Texas Central railway COM
pany VS.. Rand ct al; from Limestone
county. Appellee Rand, staying Mt Thorn
ton for her health, started home to Calves
ton on the night train. She applied to the
ticket agent az Thornton, offered him the
price OF the ticket. 1t was 10 O'Clock at
night and q few minutes before the tram
passed The ticket agent failed to signal
the train, whereby plaintiff hau
to walk two miles to
a place to sleep. BY reason of this, relapse
set in and plaintiff was sick some time.
Plea of contributOry negligence on the part
of plaintiff for travelling on NIGHT tram.
Held, first, plaintiff could recover for dam
ages which resulted, and which might rea-
sonably be expected to result from beng
left under the circumstances. Second, men
tai suffering may be estimated as basis for
damages. Third, the negligence Of the
agent is negligence of the company, Tor
which they are liable % n. Y, 2l7i -
Miss. II. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
Clifton Ellison VS.. State; from Caldwell
county. The grounds OF Il motion for change
OF venue at one time may not exist at
another, and it must be renewed;
if desired to be made available
HIrl. :. II o..
swers (of an offered juror and there IS
nothing to on radict them, that there was
not establish ed in his mind from hearsay,
or otherwise, any conclusion as TO the quit
or innocence of the accused such as would
influence his verdict, he is competent.
There is no provision that coniers upon the
trial.court the power to excuse from service
in felony case after he has been accepted
and sworn such. 10 court of appeals, Glo.
Where the STATE proves by declaration OF
the deceased that he was not armed with
pistol, contradictory evidence of the same
character iscompetent. Reversed and re-
manded. Wilson, j.
Matthews VS.. State. Indictment in this
case was for robbery and thett conviction
for robbery two years. Held, the lndict-
ment is sufficient and conclude cor
rectly by striking out the count
for theft as surplusage and indictment for
robbery, concluding as the constitution re-
quire is left deposited can only be taken for
the benefit of defendants, and only the Of
ficefs named in act 759 can take them. But
in this case it does not .purport to be an
imposition, but is evidence taken before
and certified by a committing magistrate.
Affirmed. White, p.j.
Hodges VS.. State; from Wise county. The
indictment charged that the defendant
.'did steal from W: Il, Casey a certain
horse" 1t does not state the acts which
constitute theft, and is fatally detective (see
Williams VS.. State published June 22nd).
Reversed and dismissed. Wilson, j.
Brumley VS.. State; from Denton
county. One of the owners
of the fence alleged to have been wilfully
pulled do vn was not present, did not testify
and her absence was not accounted fer.
Held. no sufficient proof of want of consent
by getting proof OF want of consent of one
owner. A party renting is the legal owner
of the fence, and an indictment charging
want of consent ofthe real owner conflicts
with the proof when it is shown that the
premises were rented to another. reversed
nd remanded. Wilson, j.
Isnam Scott VS.. State; from Lamar coun-
ty. Appellant, partly upon his own confess
sion and partly upon circumstantlal eyi
dence substantiating them, was convicted
of murder in the first degree, and death
penalty assessed. The sheriii's re-
turn is good under the authority
The statement of facts was filed after term
time and during vacation, and is not good.
Affirmed. Wilson, j.
BoDertson vs. State; from Fannin county.
The question in this case is, whether or not
the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating
liquors under the local option act' could
and did revoke the occupation license OF
defendant so as to render him amendable to
Z 10 penalty prescribed. Held, the legisla-
has full control of the subject, and can
se occupation license at pleasure, and
: : sustained by the weight Of authority.
ever local option is declared in any
" it revokes and renders null all
e for the sale of intoxicating liquors
that locality. Hurt, j does not
:. Reversed and remanded. Will
lam Young VS.. State; from Mi
J. - cJunty. The indictment in this case
charges that William Young did steal one
head of neat cattle Of the value often dol |
lars from }. T. Pickens." Held, there is
not single act charged which enters into
the composition of theft. IL is true that
the indictment alleges that the defendant
did steal" and it is true that steal and |
I eft are synonymous, and II either OF these |
y. ere used a conclusion of law would be .
merely charged. Reversed and dismissed. /
Hurt, ].
Davis VS.. State; from Bosque county. /
The indictment herein reads as follows in /
It's charging part, that about the Sth day .
of December, A. u. 1851, in Bosque county,
Texas, one w, &. Davis did steal
a hog from T.. W. Hunt, Of The value
in this form is not sufficient, the judgment
Is reversed and the cause dismissed. Wiz .
son,
Muidocn VS.. State; from Milan
county. The indictment in this case fails
to charge that the prisoner fraudulently
/. n. Al. Al III Hi. ]
indictment to be valid must not only charge
the taking but the fraudulent intent with
which they were taken. Reversed and dis
missed. Hurt, |.
George Baxton ct. al. VS.. State; from Hin
county. This is a seine facias case. The
being in this case, however, fails
% state that the same will be made final.
)fthe court why defendant did not appear.
This renders the judgment fatally defective
lnder article All, q. e. j.. For full discus
ion see Collins vs.. State decided at present
ERIN. Reversed and remanded. Hurt, ]. (
Mrs. Foster vs.. STATE: from Navarro |
county. Appellant was tried and convicted ,
# misdemeanor, for that Of an assault
md fined $50. There being another case Of {
be same kind I'm the docket Of the same {
curt when appellant took her appeal IL was {
greed by both parties that II the appeal {
vas abandoned the untried case would be !
dismissed. This properly appearing 70 the {
curt the appeal is dismissed. Hurt, j. {
George Echols vs.. State; appeal from I
Bell county. Appellant was convicted OF J
lbstructing the streets Of the city Of Bolton. |
The obstruction consisted In fruit stand, !
'ccupy1ng about six feet Of the street. De J
endani below offered to prove that there s
ras an ordinance Of said town allowing six {
70 be occupied By fruit stands. The 4
-ular passage of the ordinance was first }
r0ved By member Of the board Of alder '
len- on Objection the ordinance was re- '
scied. Held a. an error, that II such an or q