The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-06-15
COuilT DECIaIONa.
synopsis Of Opinions Of Court Of Apes

Whtituff III thla tuht tht htltlls' ltlliH w
on certain statements made by him prior
TO trial In order TO oontrovert the presump-
ton Of his guilty, the truth of such state
ment becomes Legitimate question In Is
sue. In this case no effort to prove the al-
legged statements was made The charge Is
ample and responsive to the case. Affirmed.
Per curtain.
Dawson VS.. State; from Lamar county.
The court charged that deadly weapon is
one calculated TO produce death or serious
bodily injury, or where the injury inflicted
is of a serious bodily character. Held, that
such is not an erroneous definition. In 9th
errespects the charge in this case was Who'll
ly unobiectionable. Affirmed. Ter curiam
George Dawson VS.. State; from Travis
county, The granting Of even first con
tinuance is couiided 10 the sound discretion
of a trial court and its order thereupon will
not be revised except i'll case of abuse. Ii
this case total want OF diligence is appar-
Ont in securing witnesses ana the court did
err in refusing continuance. Affirmed
Per curtain.
Taylor VS.. State; from Dallas county
The Information charges the appellant with
breaking and tearing down fence. The
recogniZance describes the offence as mali.
cious mischief. The Encouragement
moves to dismiss because the recogni2ance
does not describe the oifense charged, MOI
an otiense known to the law. Held, that
the motion is well taken and the appeal is
dismissed. Per curiam.
Marsalis VS.. Boyd ct al; from Ellis cOun-
ty. An attachment bond is required to be
in double the amount of the debt due. De-
minimus non civiat lex, does not apply
where extraordinary harsh remedies are re-
sorted to. Affidavit for ATTACHING, which
stated that the debt was due the attorney
OF, and not the plaintiff, was properly
quashed. Affirmed. Per culiem.
Robinson VS.. State; from Ellis county.
The record discloses That the statement OF
facts was not filed until after the adjourn
ment of court, and it shows no order prop
erly taken authorizing its subsequent fling.
Under such circumstances the statement
cannot be considered. The proceeding OF
the trial otherwise regular. Affirmed. Per
curtain.
Lindsay VS.. State from Van ZandC
county. The conviction in this case was
for burglary of the drug store, The bills
of exceptions leserved to the action OF the
court upon the questions involved appear
to have been filed after adjournment and
and consequently cannot be considered on
appeal Affirmed. Per curiam.
Harris vs. State; from Tarrant county,
In prosecution for theft from the person
the only question involved was the admis-
Sbility in evidence of the confession Of the
defendant. The confession was not that
the defendant, but that one G, took the
property, and as such was admissible. Al
firmed. Per curtain.
w. NJ. Denman VS.. State; from Travis
county. There are appeals in three cases
for theft of animals and the ground relied
upon in each is alleged error in refusing
application for continuance for six differ
emit witnesses, is to prove purchase OF the
animals. The evidence if admissible is not
probably true, and the defendant did not,
when first arrested. explain his possession
of the stolen animals. Affirmed. Per GU
riam.
White VS.. State; from Travis county.
The conviction was for theft from the Texas
Express company of certain property OF one
a." But the record fails to bring up
statement of facts. Conviction for theft
from corporation will not be disturbed be-
cause of the failure of the state to allege
and prove the proper name of the company
when that defense was not made below and
could only be ascertained on appeal by
reference to private acts OF the legislature
Affirmed. Per Curian.
Waliford VS.. State; from Hopkins
county. In this case the defense relies upon
the insufiiciency of the evidence to secure
reversal. But it is disclosed by the record
that when arrested, the defendant had some
of the stolen clothes on, ana the evidence is
deemed amply sufficient to support the YER
dict. Affirmed. Per curiam.
Should VS.. State; from Clay county
Objection that the trial judge signed neith-
er the general nor the special charges are
not tenable, and as the indictment is suifi-
cient, the charges correct, and the evidence
ample to sustain the finding of the Jury,
the judgment is affirmed, Per curiam,
Leach vs. State; from Cooke county. y
appears from the record that upon motion
the court below reduced the bail bond from
5000 TO 5000. The record fails to bring
in q. statement of facts, under such cir
cimstances this court must presume
the action of the court correct. Cause OF
appeal adjudged against appellant. AZ
firined. Per curtain.
BIalock VS.. State; from Ellis county.
The offense defined in Art. III is the.unaw-
full taking up and using an ostray without
complying with law, and recognizance that
omits the words taking up" and fail 10
describe the offense, and motion TO dismiss,
therefore, must prevail. Motion dismissed.
Larigan, sr., VS.. Carr; from Lamar coun-
ty, The judgment being in TACT against L.,
ST., L., jr., and another. an appeal bond
which describes it as against L., sr, Is IA
tally defective. And the appeal bond is
otherwise detective in that it is signed by
but one surety. Appeal dismissed. Per
McCaleb VS.. State; from Montague coun-
ty. Where the general charge of the court
sufficiently covers the law OF the question
upon which special charge is asked, refusal
OF the special charge Is not error. Nor have
counsel in this case undertaken 20 point out
wherein the general charge is erroneous
The conviction was for aggravated assault
Affirmed. Per curiam.
Billings VS.. State; from Dallas county.
Hinder proper construction OF articles 81,
S5l. and S52 Of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, the defendant in misdemeanor case
is required 10 enter into recognizance at the
term Of the court at which the conviction is
had, and II entered into after adjournment
If such term motion to dismiss the appeal
will prevail, Appeal dismissed. Per
Walton vs.. State from Dallas county.
The transcript must show. afhrinatiyeiy
A. at the Attendant in a misdemeanor case,
upon his conviction entered into recog-
nizance, or that he is in custody. In de-
fault OF such showing, an appeal will be
dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Per Gu
rinm. ,
stWllfully" is an essential descriptive aver
rncut Of the offense OF disturbing religious
worship. and a recognizance which omits
such descriptive aTerment, u fatally
detective. and on motion 70
dismiss appeal. therefore must prevail.
Appeal dismissed. Per curiam.
farker vs. state; from Tarrant coun-
~. The conviction on this case was for
robbery. and the record brings up from ten
bills Of exception and Ike number Of as /
rirnments The proof, In the production 81
which every latitude was permitted, the /
defendant i ample, and the record dis |
closes that the impeaChing witnesses con |
pIained Of were PLACED under the rule vita /
he other witnesses. Affirmed. Per curiam. i
Burns W State from Falls county. l
The cnustirutionai elements % the offence
III robbery are defined In article 748 q TIE
Penal Code. indictment which follows sub
ufnrtiallv. The common Law precsdent u