The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-06-15
Court of AnpenIs.

Court of Appeals.
Lagrone vs.state; from Milan counly---In
general it is sufficient to charge an offense
in the language used IN the statute, but an
Indictment for SANDER is one of the eX-
eeptions. This is an offence in which the
slanderOus language used must be set
out, in order to put the defence properly
on trial. A general charge of SANDER, i'll
that the defendant imputed want of
chastity to the female injured, will not
charge the offense of SANDER. Reversed
and Observation-Disclosures j..
Soarry VS.. state; from Dallas county.
The indictment in this case was for as
sault upon one s., the assault consisting
in i threat to kill unless he paid debt
due. The Indictment and proof, showing
a threat, coupled with an ability, Il
sufficient. TIE evidence is ample and
the charge unObjectionable. Such being
the case. it must be affirmed. Per Cur
lam.
ayers VS.. state; appeal from BeXaI
county.-When this court at any one OF
its branches adjourns for the term within
less than fifteen days after rendition of
judgment, mandate, unless otherwise
ordered, shall not issue until the expira-
tion of such time, and if within that time
application for re-hearing shall be pre-
scented to the clerk, having endorsed
thereon the order of any member of the
court that it be filed, mandate shall be
further suspended. The clerk. in addi-
ton to his other duties with reference to
motions for re-hearing, shall forward the
papers to the branch where the court
next meets. Application for the return
Ofappeal to the term then in session need
not be inserted in the record, but If in
writing certified copy is sufficient. II
it be oral, the practice would be that ill.,
Dictated in s Ct. App. 209. Re-hearing
refused.-Hurt, j.
Eehols VS.. state; appeal from Bell
county-The information charges :
"wilfully Obstruct 4 street in the incOr-
pOrated town of B., said street
being the one known as Cross street, and
also called the Avenue" RecOgniZance
describes the offense as constructing and
injurlng a street in the incorporated
town of B., known as Cross street or the
avenue" Held. that the offeHse defined
is substantially that charged in the infor-
nation. Motion to dismiss Overruled.-
Per curtain.
Patterson VS.. the state; appeal from
Gonzales county.-lndictment for SANDER
which sets out specifically the slanderous
words alleging particular acts is sufficient.
The slanderous words consisting of char
ges against the chastity Of female, the
defense is entitled to prove if he can, the
truth of the particular acts charged, or
that the woman's general reputation was
bad at the time the same was uttered.
But the defendant cannot prove other
acts or conduct imputing want OF chas-
tity, except those specifically embraced
in the imputation made by him. Rehear-
ing awarded the state and judgment al
firmed.-Willson,J j.
Williams VS.. the state; appeal from
Wilson couaty. The conviction was foI
failing to attend at u designated place Ia
work the public roads, in accordance with
the summons of the authorized overseer
The recognizance fails to decribe the of.
Tense as ''willful' failure, and it is con.
seqLently insufficient. [See Mckay VS..
the state. ct. APP. 612l. Appeal dis
missed.-Per curiam.
Maddox VS.. the state; appeal from
Milan county. - Charge of the court
which instructs the jury that if the mare
stolen was branded } |, and was on her
accustomed range when taken, they
should presume that she was the prop
erty of l., and that the brand was pre-
sumptive evidence of ownership, is error
both as abstract law, and as upon the
weight of evidence. Unless recorded. Il
brand is no kind of evidence of title.
Though not excepted to, nor challenged
until made Il ground for new trial, the
error is such as to necessitate reversal.
Reversed and remandeI.-Willson,J
Green VS.. state; from Walker county.
Where the slayer provoked contest
with the deceased with the apparent in
tention of killing him or doing him some
serious bodily Injury, he is guilty of MUIR
der, although he may have done the act
suddenly, without deliberatiOn and TO
protect his own life. But If the slayer
provoked the contest without any inten-
ton to kill or inflict serious bodily injury
and suddenly without elaboration did
the act Of killing, while the act would not
be justifable homicide, still it might be
reduced to lower grade of homicide
than murder. The charge. correct so far
as it goes, falls short of this distinction
in this case. The facts also called for a
dir ct charge on manslaughter. Re-
versed aud remanded.-Willson, j.