The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-12-07

synopsis ~ Oidsiona ~ ihe Court ~ 49,.
peaia, Tyler Term, 1883,
Eddleman W. The State, from Baylor
county. Conviction 0f theft Of horses and
sentence assessed NJ ten years lmprlson.
ment Tie horses, whcn stolen, were hob.
blod on tho prairie. They were easily
tracked TO the house of one Scott at whose
house they we're identified with defendant
as IN his possession the night Of the theft.
The evidence Is ample TO support the YER
DICT. Tho charge OF the court on circum-
stantial evidence and reasonable doubt Is
sufficient. No error Is apparent Of record.
Affirmed. Wilson, J.
Holloway vs. the State; from Smith
county. Conviction of assault with intent
TO murder. The court, in part of its
charge referring TO the nature OF the as
sault, said It must be done with malice
aforeihought or deadly weapon. This is
objected TO. Held, taken as whole the
charge Is unobnoXious, the error is clearly
a lapsus pennn, and is corrected by other
parts of the charge as well as by special in
s4ructions asked and given. A bill OF eX-
ceptions must be filed within ten days after
the trial, even though in term time. AT
tirmed. White, p. ].
Spencer VS.. the State; from Cass county.
Conviction for theft of money from the per-
son OF Jake Roberts, sentence two years.
The statement of facts was not filed within
the ten days allowed by the court Ii was
prepared and forwarded to the Judge, who
was in a distant part of the county, but did
not reach him until the ten days allowed
had elapsed. Held this is not a sufficient
excuse to give us any right to consider the
statement in the record The indictment
and the charge of the court cannot be COM
planned of In the absence of statement
of facts we can find no error warranting a
reversal. Affirmed. Wilson, j.
Marshall Car & Foundry company VS..
Wilkens; from Harrison county. Suit on
account by appellee against appellant,
Judgment in the court below for full amount
claimed. There being no order of court
permitting the filing Of the statement of
facts and bill of exceptions after. the, ad-
iournment of court, and such being done
we cannot consider them. In their absence
we fail to find an error. a suggestion of
DELAY opening up the record, we have care.
fully inspected it, and conclude that the APP
peal was taken for delay; We therefore
award 10 per cent. damages. Affirmed.
Texas T. Pacific railroad company VS..
Johnson ct al; from Harrison county.
lnere is no Dill Oh eACeptlOlo VI olateneho
of facts in the record which we can consider.
The statement of facts being filed
with the bill of exceptions
after the adjournment of court and
no order of court allowing such being APP
parent OF record they should not have
been included in the record. In the abb
sence OF these we fail to find any error in
the Judgment of the court below. Affirmed.
White, p. j.
county, Suit for damages for illegal seiz-
ure of certain cattle. The execution by vir-
tue of which the levy was made was alleged
to have been issued by a justice OF the
peace of Gregg county, but there was no
certificate of the county judge OF that
county attached showing that such party
issuing the execution was justice of the
peace. Held, such an omission is not
merely an irregularity, but fatal defect.
execution is Invested of its legal effect. APP
pellant, acting for himself, and as agent
for the others. binds them equally with
himself Affirmed. White, p. j.
Tickle VS.. the State; from Navarro county.
Conviction of murder in the second degree;
sentence, seven years. Appellant and one
Shields had difficulty while Shields was Wis
iting in the neighborhood, in which Tickle
was accused of "hckering." About q
mOnUn ulIeTWdTu Dulciio Cailo iheo ohO
neighborhood again and attended church,
at which appellant was. Tickle invited
him out and they proceeded to branch
near by, where the difficulty was renewed,
in which Tickle shot Shields. The evil
dence supports the verdict. The indict-
ment is good, the charge is correct and
there is no error apparent. Affirmed.
White, p. j
Hull VS.. Rintleman; from Tarrant county.
Suil for trial of the right of property. Hull
claimed under an execution issued upon a
Judgment rendered in the justice court.
The Judgment was rendered for $500 princi-
pal, $40 attorneys fees and costs Held, the
Judgment being for an amount over 500, the
Justice court had no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the judgment rendered by
it was therefore void. The Judgment being
void, the sale made under an execution is
sued upon such void judgment passed no
title. The court below SO held and did not
err. Affirmed. White, p. j.
Brundige VS.. Bradfield ct al; from Har-
rison county. Brundige sold Bradfeld GER
tain land giving him bond for title. Show
ing this bond to Scott, a merchant, he OBJ
tanned advances with which to make his
crop. Failing to pay Brundige, Bradfield
and he revoked the sale, and Bradfield be-
came the tenant of Brundige. This was
without Scott's knowledge. Bradfield gave
Scott a mortgage which was recorded.
Held, under the bond TOR title and notes
given they sustained the relation of vendor
and vendee until the verbal agreement was
entered into. Scott was not charged with no.
tiee OF such. The former IS estoppeu from
denying the right of one acting in good
faith. Affirmed. Hurt, ].