The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-06-22
The Youth Arrested at Weatherford
for Train Robbery Proves to be
"Not the Fellow" and Is
Released.
Bubblings Of the Political Pot-A Host
Of Candidates and Divers
Representations.
A Decision OF the Comptroller-Goy.
Roberts has Returned Austin
POt.pourri.
Synopsis Of an Important Decision
Rendered Yesterday.
Probable Early Adjournment Of the
Courts.
Other Interesting State News.
Synopsis Of an Important Decision
Rendered Yesterday.
Probable Early Adjournment Of the
Courts.
Other Interesting State News
Austin.

Austin.
Special to the Herald.
AUSTIN, June gl.-The Wiley University
of Texas, Marshall free to all races), to be
built and operated by contributions, filed
articles Of incorporation to-day, as did also
the Lampasas college, for the education of
both sexes, and with powers to confer
degrees.
Pierce, the mail agent arrested at San
Antonio this morning for robbing regis
tered packages was the protege of ex-Post.
master-General Maynard. Inspector Lacy
had found registered packages which he
had put in Pierces charge. He found two
Oh them open, arrested Pierce, and found
on his person $l5 in bills with his private
marx on them, contents Of the packages.
The comptroller decided that salaried
agents oil JOB printing offices, canvassing for
blanks, are subject to the drummers tax.
A political circular ovey the signature of
l.. r. Tarver, Of the Evening Club, is
IN circulation here. 1t is addressed to the
elements OF dissatisfaction with the demo-
cratic party, and asks the use of their names
IN an address for general conference to
nominate peoples ticket for state Offices
The commissioners of appeals have ad-
journed
The governor has returned.
| The following decision of the court of
appeals has been delivered, killing what is
known as the Homan Common Sense Bill:
williams vs.. the State; from Freestone
county. The indictment Ia as follows:
I'm the name and by the authority of the
state OF Texas, the grand jury Of Freestone
county, Texas, present In the district court
OF Freestone county. that about the third
day OF January, 1881 lin Freestone county.
Texas, A. l.. Williams did fraudulentIy
steal, take and carry away four hogs Of the
value of 81, from II. l.. Williams, contrary
TO law and against the peace and dignity Of
1t Is contended that this indictment is
lnsunicient under the act entitled IAN act to
ple'crioe the requisites Of indictmen uin GER
tam cases. (approyed March 10Th 1881 Cen
eral Laws l7th Legislature, chapter 81.
page GU. The constitutionality of the
iorm prescribed in that act is herein di-
rectly raised and presented for adjudca-
ton. Held, that the indictment Is q valid
one II the form rs prescribed Is valid, The
Indictment fails TO charge the following ele-
ments OF theft as defined In article 2li, Penal
Code First, the ownership of the prop
erty; second, the want Of consent OF the
owner third, that II was taken with intent
| 70 deprive the owner OF the value Of the
same; fourth, with intent to appropriating
II to the use of the person taking il. FAIL
ing TO state these requisites or any part of
them would render the indictments sub
stantially and fatally defective under all
the previous decisions Of this court and OF
our supreme court upon this subject. and
In the organic law (Bill of Rights, sec. lO)
| where the word indictment had we'll
known legal Specification at the time IL was
used. Bunnins' l.. ID, title Indictment.
Arch, Grim. ri. and Prac. IS; first Bish.
Grim. Pro-, sec. l3l and 1856; Code G. p,
~ opinion of Chief Justice Roberts in
newitt Us. state, 18th Tex, 122; State VS..
Duke, ~ Tex, 1856. We hold that such
being the meaning Of the term used in the
Blll OF Rights,i is beyond the power of the
legislature, to. make that good indict-
ment which does not substantially come
within the definition as used by the trainers
OF our constitution. We do not think the
Indictment In question or the form pre-
scrlbed IN the act comes within the mean.
ing OF an indictment as understood
and used in the bill Of rights. II charges
no iacts, acts or omissions constituting The
crime OF theit rs defined and described In
our code, and we hold that the form pre-
scrioed Tor THEFT In the act is not repugnant
to our constitution, and that the defendant
who has been tried on such indictment las
not been tried by due course of the law of
he land. Reversed and dismissed.
bSlgneul WILSON, Judge.
The opinion Is able, exhaustive and com.
plcte, '' 0''
COURT DECISIONS.
Garltty ct. al. vs.. Groos, commissioner,
from Travis county; affirmed. Information.
al Il Great Northern railroad VS.. Hutchins,
irom Travis county; affirmed.
COURT or APPEALS.
Mrs. Foster vs.. the State, from Navarro
county. affirmed. Robinson vs. tho State,
nom Fannln county; reversed and rc,
| manded. Williams vs.. the State, from
rannin county; reversed and dismissed.
Rodriguez vs.. the State, from Webb county
e cases.; reversed and dismissed. Motion
VS.. the State, from Young county; reversed
and dismissed. Labauch W. the State, from
Guadaloupe county; reversed and 70.
manded. Nurby vs.. the State, from Den.
ton county; reversed and remanded. Casi.
nova vs.. the State, from Cooke county, re.
versed and remanded. Houston q Texas
Central railroad VS.. Rand, from Lime.
stone county. affirmed. Scott VS..
the State, from Lamar county:
death penalty affirmed. William
Dwyer vs. the. State, from Fort Bend
county; reversed and dismissed. Elecdges
/ VS. Nuv CNtcs iIotu WIN county. reversed
and dismissed. Davis W.. the State. from
Bosquc county; reversed and dismissed.
Collins vs.. Matthews & Wright, from GRAY.
son county; affirmed on certificate, Alcx.
Gray vs.. the State, from Comal county:
affirmed. Ellison vs. the State, from Cnld.
well county; reversed and remanded. Uon.
Eales vs.. the State, from Atmcosa county.
affirmed; Mason Vs. the STATE.
from Smith county; affirmed. Mat.
thews vs.. the State, from Tarrrnt
county; affirmed. George Bartip Al ii.
vs.. the state, from Veil county: reversed
and remandcd. Muldrow vs''the State.
from Milan county (threc cascs): reversed
and remanded. Huntcman W. the State,
nom Falls county; reversed and reu, sndcd'
Echols Va. the State. from Bell county: re.
versed and remandcd. Brlnster N the
State, from Bernard county; 'rvvsrsed and
! dismissed another Homan indictsneuS \.
RegRins and Anderson ", Ford from HIIl
county, reported Of commissioners ndop,ed,
Judgment rendered. Lee et. al. W. the tsate,
from Travis county; reveDDed And remand.
, ed. on report OF commissioners of appssls
: TURNKEY Brothers et al. VI. Wei0 a 'friss
! from Williamson county: Affirmed. on ~
port Of commissioners Of appeals. En-