The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-31
COURT DECISIONS.
synopsis Of Opinions of Court of Appeals.
Austin Term, 1882

~ The information and complaint were
both filed in court June S, 1881, and both
charged that the offence was committed on
lane S, 1881. 1t is impossible to the sufll.
cency OF the information that it charge the
oaence at the same time anterior TO the
fling. The judgment is reversed and the
information dismissed. Wilson, j.
Paul VS.. State; from Mitchell county. The
snpellant and five others were indicted for
Conspiracy TO rob. One Of the others was
tried aud acquitted, and this appellant was
nlaced on trial on Il severance
md convicted. He rendered in evidence
tbe record of the trial and acquittal Of his
ro.defendant, which was rejected. The ac-
eaital of one of two charged with conspir-
qcy must result in the acQuittal of the
other, and the record of the acquittal of the
one is admissible. in evidence
upon the trial of the other. Green
IN, sec. 81, and where one Il
several defendants charged with conspiracy
has been acquitted, the record ofan acquit-
mi Is evidence for another defendant. (Wh.
Grim. Law (S2d) sec. 1917 The charge in
reference 10 conspiracy was erroneous in
including the party acquitted, but should
have been confined to defendant on trial
and his remaining co.deiendant. Reversed
and remanded. White, p. j.
Britton VS.. State; from Bowie county.
The oiiense charged, was an assault with
intent to murder q. j. The main question
turns on the suilcency Of the verdict,
which reads as follows: 1--WE, the Jury,
find the defendant guilty of an assault and
attempt to murder, and assess the punish
ment at two years in the state peniten-
tiary.' Held sufficient, tho evidence be-
ink sufficient, and the charge is not erro-
neous. Affirmed. Per curtain.
Patterson w. State; from McLennan
county. 1t is only when it appears to the
district Judge that the oifense was commit
ted in au Incorporated town or city, and
that there is justice in such town or city,
that he is required to transfer to such jus.
tice cases over which he has no jurisdiction.
The district Judge did not know judicially
that W. was Incorporated or that there
was justice OF the peace in said town, nor
vas it made TO appear, The defendant s
special pleas were properly overruled.
Playing at game of cards in a public
place. and betting at faro are two separate
oilenses, and n charge which authorizes con-
yotion of one upon an Indictment for an
other, is error. Reversed and remanded.
Wilson,
Cooke, Kingsbury, Morris and Caldwell
vs.. State; from McLennan county; four
cases, the indictments in which charged,
and the convictions were for playing at faro
in the city of Waco. The question which
arose in the case of Patterson VS.. State,
supra, was not presented in these records,
but the same proceedings were had upon
the special plea as to transfer of the case to
the Justice from the district court. In these
cases the evidence sustains the convictions,
and the charges are sufficient. Affirmed.
Per Curtain.
Price ct. al. VS.. State; from East
lnd county. That the bond upon
which the forfeiture was taken, was not,
and had not been signed by the principal
is good defense against final judgment
upon judgment nisi That the principal s
name was included in the body ofthe bond,
does not amount in affect to signing.
There was no writing by the principal OF
name, or by his authority in any part of the
body of the bond, and hence it does not
come under the rule laid down in Is Texas,
III, The bond was absolutely void. Re
yersed and dismissed. Hurt, ],
Gardner VS.. State; from Coleman county.
The only vital question involved ia this
case is rs to the proceedings in the APP
pointment of jury commissioners, the APP
pellant contending that their appointment
was unauthorized (Rev Stats Art 1927 }
The same article provides that the rules
applicable to the district court apply to the
county court, and article 3022. Rev. Stats
provides that il commissioners are not ap-
pointed at the proper time they may be
ai'erward appointed. Affirmed. White
p..i
lsaacs vs.. State; from Ellis county. The
conviction in this case was for murder in
the second degree, with five years in the
penitentiary awarded. The record fails to in.
dictate with any probability the truth ofthe
matter set up in the motion for new trial and
therefore it was error to override the
motion. The charge was full and sufficient
ana there was no billo exceptions served
Affirmed. Per curiam
Mcclure vs.. State; from Atascosa county
That the indictment was fatally defective
because IL ommitted to allege that the.pis
tol "unlawlHlly carried''is not tenablC
objection to il. (See Pickett VS.. State II
Ct App The evidence shows that the de-
iendant was not u traveller within the mean
ing OF the law. He was present and did
not object when the county attorney agreed
that the court should deliver verba
charge to the jury. Affirmed. Per Gu
curiam.
Kelly VS.. State; from McLennan county
Information That charges aggravated as
saut with premeditated assault and by
means calculated to inilict great bodily in
Jury, is sufficient to charge the oilense
That the means used (thc fists in this case
were calculated to inilict such injury Il
abundantly shown in this case. The fact:
IN evidence are abundantly sufficient L
sustain the conviction. Affirmed. White
p,i.
thomas VS.. State from Robertson
county. The prosecution is based on al
Affidavit charging appellant with aggra
waited assault. The information charges y
y y NOW here in the affidavit y Y y
which is herewith filed Y y and shows :,
the court" Held under . Ct, App. that tn,
Information is insufficient, In that "show.
70 the court" is not direct allegation thai
the defendant committed the oilense
Again II appears that the affidavit" no
the "intormation,n shows to the court. Re
versed and dismissed. Wilson, ]
Case VS. State; from Bexar county
The defendant was charged with then o
US. property from the possession of said q
The evidence shows that the property wa
taken from the possession OF r. V. not q
Though the charge was Il CT. App $50 |
taxing from the possession of the owne
and evidence showed q taking from the pos
session of his servant ana held TO be u tax
ing from the owner, there Is no such privitl
shown In this case. There Is nothing Il
show that Z. was holding for g., the owner
put Tor one S. The statute makes the al
legation of pogsessiou of necessary lpScrin