The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-11-23
COURT OF APPEALS.
yynopsis Of opihions OF the Court Of APP
peals, Tyler Term. 1889.

~ peais. Tyler Term. 1854
Wheeler VS.. Town; from Van Zandt
county. The defendant in error in this
case moves the court to affirm the writ Of
error on certificate, and shows that on Feb
ruary i6, 1881, plaintiff in error filed in the
court below his petition and bond for writ
Of error and supersede as in the cause; that
said plaintiff has failed to file transcript
Of the proceedings of the lower court, as is
required by law, and herewith defendant
files his crtiiicate for aflirmarce. Held, the
record bearing the allegation ofdefendant in
error out and such giving him the right for
aflirmance, the judgment is affirmed. Will
son,
Wall VS.. Hussey & Logan; from Morris
county. At q former Jay OF this court this
appeal was dismissed. The appellees now
come and under oath asks that mandate is
sue at once, inasmuch as they are informed
and believe that appellant is encumbering
his property in order to defeat his creditors
and disposipg of his crop, and if they arc
compelled await the workings Of the law
they will lose their claim. The appeal was
dismissed October Dist. No motion TO re.
instste has been made. Held. upon such
state of facts the court will order the issu-
ance OF the mandate forthwith upon pay
ment of costs. Mandate ordered to issue
ON payment of costs. Wilson, j.
LaGrove vs.. McLendon; from Harrison
county. This appeal is sought to be dis.
missed because the transcript herein filed
was not filed on or before the first day of
the day set for the assignment to which the
county from which the appeal is taken be-
HalA tha rapnrH haaru n nnaIlaa N
in his statements, and no good cause is
shown why appellant failed to file this
transcript as is required by law. Therefore,
II remains only for us to dismiss the APP
peal.
Parker VS.. the State; from Van Zandt
county. An indictment, alleging that de-
fendant ibid unlawfully keep and exhibit a
certain bank and table for the purpose of
gaming" is good q Ct. App. 1S7). There
Is a line of decisions In this state, holding
under the former law that it was not an Of
fence to keep or exhibit, for the purpose of
gaming, table licensed by law and on
which the license has been paid 1t is now
violation of the law to keep or exhibit a
table for the purpose of gaming, notwith-
standing such table may be licensed under
the law, and 1t is an offence to wager or bet
upon such table. Affirmed Wilson, /.
Weaver VS.. State; from Hopkins county.
Appellant objected to the introduction of
the indictment and bond because the bond
signed by him as surety and w. II. Torlet
as principal is not forfeited by an indict-
ment against W. IT, Torbett and further
the judgment Wei is against w. 4. Torbert
Held, there being no allegation in the sci
ia proceedings that they were the same per-
son, 1t was error for the court to allow the
introduction Of the indictment and bond
Reversed and remanded, Hurt, j..
Harden VS.. the State; from Hopkins
county. The court in its charge assumed
that appellant did not act in good faith,
and that he accused Simpson falsely In
order to clear himself when the evidence
clearly showed the contrary, that defen-
dant had acted in good faith in regard to
tho contract. Held, 1t Is error for the court
to assume the existence Of fact or state of
facts In their character criminative and to
charge thereon. % CT. App. $780, Reversed
and remanded. Hurt, ],
Hall vs.. the State; from Hunt county.
This is q conviction for burglarizing house
in the day time. Appellant was in u saloon
on the day of the burglary, and when the
ho ran, saying: "Im the man you are
looking for" When arrested portion OF
the stolen goods were found on his person.
This made the evidence very conclusive as
to his guilt. The house being broken into
after daylight, the charge of burglary in
day time was sustained, The indictment,
the charge Of the court and the conviction
are unobnoxious. Affirmed White, u. /.
Watson VS.. the State, from Nacogdoches
county. Appellant was charged with and
convicted of playing cards in house used
Tor retailing Liquors. The proof showed
that he played cards in an upper room of a
building, the basement room of which was
used for retailing liquors The upper room
was in no way connected with the basement
except by q pair of steps leading into the
street from theupper room. Held, this did
not bring the upper room within the prohi.
bition of the statute. Had tho upper room
been connected in any way with the room
below, or been used so as to give it the
character Of a house for retailing liquors,
II would have made appellant amenable to
the statute. (26 Tex, esq., Reversed and
remanded, Hurt, j.
Heac0ck VS.. the State; from Van Zandt
county. The mere fact that person has
paid or promised to pay money to aid in
the prosecution of person charged with
crime, Is not sufficient to constitute such
person q private prosecutor under the stat
ute. The fact that the person has ,een in
the banking business for five years. more or
less experienced in handwriting and thinks
he could tell by comparing two written In
struinents whether the same person wrote
them, does not constitute him an expert,
ind lac should not be permitted to testify
as such; (Art. 10i Code Grim. Proc; 3 CHI.
app, 1866; Wharf. Grim. Ev. S,io6) Re-
versed and rcmanded. Wilson, I.
An Aching nuck