The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-30
COURT DECISIONS.
s,vopsis of Opinions OF the Commissioner
nj Appeais-Austin Term, 1852.

sbould have charged the law applicable
thereto. For failing to do which the iudg-
ssnt will be reversed and the cause re-
handed. Watts, C.
Walton vs. Etter; from Grayson county.
One day before his license AS retail LIQUOR
Ssoer under the bell punch law" expired
The appellant applied to the collector for
i;csnse under the act of March IL, 1881,
claiming that as his bell punch registered
Int $40 of the $3.50 paid, he was entitled to
ecredt OF the difference for the next ensu-
ms year. Held. such construction cannot
be nut upon the latter act. When the
amount registered did not equal $3.50 the
balance due on payment under the act of
IS9 emitting credit was intended to be esti-
mated on the basis of $3.50 as a specific an
nual tax, considered with reference TO the
uuexpired term, as Tor instance, only eleven
months had elapsed when the charge was
made The credit should be one-twelth OF
the $3.50. Affirmed. Watts, C,
synopsis OF Opinions OF Court of Appeals,
Austin Term, 1852.
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, discl6ses
the TACT that it is not amenable to the obiec-
tons urged against it, The statement of
facts appears TO have been filed more than
Ten DAYS after the adjournment of court,
and cannot be considered for any purpose
on appeal. Affirmed. Per curiam.
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
ofthe 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 curtain.
Montgomery VS.. State; from Cooke
county Where the evidence upon CON
yiction has been secured, falls short of
that conclusive nature, necessary to estab
lish an intent on the part of the defendant
to commit the offence of which he has been
convicted, it falls short of establishing
necessary element Of crime, and does not
sustain verdict of conviction. The facts
and circumstances in evidence in this case
90 far to deprive the transaction OF GRIM
ina intent. Reversed and remanded.
White, p. j.
Reuder vs.. State; from Lamar county.
The record failing to show an order per-
hitting the filing of the statement of facts
after the adjournment of court, the state.
ment so filed cannot be considered. The
facts charged against the service of the in
dictment on defendant are not nuthenti-
Gated and beyond that, the charges are
found correct. Affirmed. Per curiam.
Bowden vs. State; from Hood county.
Error in changing the venue is not available
by plea to the jurisdiction of the court to
which the case has been transferred. Ex-
Ception must be taken in the tribunal by
which :he change was ordered. (8 CT. App. y
The order of the judge granting or refusing
aChange of Venue shall not be reversed,
unless the facts upon which the same was
based are presented in bill of exceptions,
prepared, signed, approved and filed at the
term Of the court at which said order was
made &C. p, 5S4) The record discoses
no other point OF moment. Affirmed.
White, p. J. appellant was indicted with
the Myers boys, and in his case life term
was assessed.
SuchaAock VS.. State; from Robertson
county. The conviction was TOR misde-
meanor, and the penalty assessed at fine
otSlOo. The facts fail to show satisfactorily
that the defendant was under arrest ut
the time of his confession; but, il so, it
shows also that he was fully warned by the
officer that il might be used against him.
Judgment affirmed. Per curtain.
Rice Vs., State; from Falls county. The
statute expressly provides that an Informs
ton charging al oifense cannot be made
until after" an oath has been made by
some credible person, charging the defend
ant with an offense. In this case the in
formation appears to have been filed 0cto'
Der Z, 1851. The affidavit was not filed un-
nl0ctober q, 1881, seventeen days after,
t..Fa ....,
sented without an affidavit to support II
the Judgment is reversed and the iniorma.
ton dismissed. Wilson,.
Johnson vs.. State; from Parker county
The indictment charges y y Y did then
and there fraudulently steal and carry
away from the owner one certain gold
watch OF the value of $3.50, the corporal
personal property Of said II. b., without
his consent and with intent to deprive hin,
OF the value Of the same and to appropriate
me same TO the use, ETC." Held, the charge
Is sufficiently full, and as there was neither
statement OF facts nor bill of exceptions
brought up tho Judgment is affirmed. Pei
curiHm.
=, Carr VS.. State; from Denton county
There was a submission Of this case on be.
half on the state, but the record neither
shows statement of facts nor bill of excep,
'N"'' y iiVi tulh NbuE'
can only look TO the srtticiency OF the in.
1ictmont and for fundamental errors. The
Inst is found sufficient and with reference
10 the lattcrthere are none found. Affirmed
Per curiam.
r, Pettigrow vs.. State; from Bell county
Iheit OF q horse was the charge, and the
evidence showed that few days after the
thelt the defendant had tho animal Mt his
mthers house, in another county. Other
wise, he was proved 90 be an imbecile, d
iool, and TO have no more mind than q child
Oh ten years. The showing of mere pos
s.Ssion OF the stolen animal, aud, on the
other hand, imbecility, will not support III,
verdict of conviction. The evidence doe.
not support the verdict, Reversed and re-
manded. Wilson, J.
iruax VS., State from Orange county. II
Strue that the finding OF one in possession
% personal property recently stolen Is
circumstance to be considered in determin
ing The case, but u is not enough Of it.el
ptupport y conviction; aud tho only cyi
yohce In this case Is that the property, aftel
melt, was found In the possession of do
lehdent. Reversed and remanded. vii
son,
M, Berry VS.. State; from johnson county
Tue indictment for obstructing q public
road described Il ~ "the road leading from
a., IN j. county, 10 TT. Wo., In Il county
10y way OF Q. j., In j. county," aud there |,
no variance In the proof. The character o.
sroad as apublic road, may be established
hv pVitanga az lnus. .,,,,,,,,l ,,.. t. /. .,,.l