The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-02-09
h, FEBRUAnY ., 1S8s.

thereof Hold. fhat the main rhnrte n
sp0ndod fully ip the tlso Hl nude by Nh
evidence, aid wHs sufficient and ile n
fsr NJ the rlurR0 asked was MT crrp
Neither bills Of exception nor usHHnnof
Uf error are Incorporated lu tho record
Affirmed. White, pI.
80. Cmir ST.. state, from Llmpusus county
The grounds relied upon 100 motion a
quush Hp Indictment for PERJURY were ina
the Indictment did not SHOW by dlrrc
affirmative allegation that the D,sirIc
Court of J.. county WIS In session at th,
dnl- at the alleged oiltusp, that 10 does no
show the organization Of the Grand Jury
before whom the PERJURY Is charged TO have
been committed, IL does not show tl,
appointment Of 4. as foreman Of tine Grand
/ Jury; nor that the Grand Jury was In session
when the oath was administered by sad
"a. nor when the alleged statements wcr,
made. Held, that the Indictment, notwlth'
standing, is sufficient TO charge the ollense'
Objection to charges should be taken
for new trial HAT the court erred
in the charge, is too uncertain
and vague to elicit examination by this
court, unless the error be fundamental, and
of apparent injury to the defendant. The
court did not err IN admitting i'm evidence
the records of the court TO show that il. was
in session and the Grand Jury organized,
Affirmed. Hurt, j.
Elsccpt vs.. State; from Guadalupe
county, An indictment that charges lhat
defendant did ravish, is equal to an allcgu-
tion that the rape was effected by force and
against the consent of the female, but
an indictment that charges an assault
with intent to rayish, but which does not
aver that defendant did rayish, is INSULT
cgnt to allege the necessary element OF
force to sustain conviction Tor assault 10
rape and Carnllly know by force. Hence,
the defendants exceptions to the indlct-
muut should have been sustained. judg-
mgut reversed and case dismissed Hurt, ].
Winn vs.. State; from Guadalupe county.
Mine conviction in this case was for mis-
Acmennor-thcN Of personal property
uhl the value of $50. The charges given
blythe court were erroneous from llrst 10
last, while those asked by defendant were
the proper charges demanded by the case.
But the defence failed to except to the
charge as given, rs to the refusal OF those
asked. In misdcmeanOr cases, such pro-
CgCdiugs IS necessary to a review by tins
court. But the evidence in this case mega
tiyes, rather chan sUstains the idea OF guilt,
and hence does not sustain the verdict.
Reversed and rcnautcd Hurt j..
Allen vs.. state; from Fort Bend county.
L 4
iectCi that there was variance between the
proof and the indictment, in that the indict-
mcnt laid the property in James W.;
whereas the proof called HIM "JCCms" and
Jim" Held, that the objection WAS not
well taken. The Judge explanation othe
bill of exceptions shows, that being cross
examined, the witness said his name was
James" though he pronounced it
"Ieems" 1t being proposed to prove by
ha. II. hat "a
who Lad testified for the State was Il thief,
the State objected and the court sustained
the objection. Held, not error. Affirmed.
White p. j.
Hunsucker VS.. State irom Hopkins
county. The charging tart Of the iniorma-
ton was that defendant "did the and there
lawfully keep and exhibit, and was then
ano there interested n keeping and cNh.'-
ltlnEfS. the purpose of gaming, cCrtal4
gaming th,l upon which the game of pool
was then ana v.ere = aged, contrary, etc.
me exceptions WNre :, DStaEtiaily that no
O.en2c was charged, 'ia description given
Of the table, or lrermenl l.. the name ~
Whichit was called was unknown, and di
not NEGATIVE the presumption tina defend.
ant had paid IN occupation tax. Tia evil
dcnce showed il to be Il billiard 'abie gu
which pin-pool is ordinarily played. Hej
that the information was sufficient. Al
tirmcd. White, p. j.
Muuday VS.. State; from Cooke county.
The court charged that If the defendant
make an assault upon the SAID Lewis Black,
with intent TO murder him, rs hcrclnbciore
deincd to you, and it should appear from
the evidence that after such assault the
parties were separated, and after such sep
aration the said Lewis Black shot at defend
ant, YOU are instructed that such shooting
on the part of Black would not justify or
excuse the defendant tron punishment Tor
the assault he had committed" Held, that
the facts in this case warranted the charge
as given, and it was not error to refuse to
give in charge any modification as asked by
defendant. Affirmed White, p. j.
Stewart VS.. State from Bexar county.
Unless exception to the refusal OF a continu-
ance be interposed at the time and brought
M by bill, shiS court will not revise the ac-
ton of the court below Having proved
the want of consent OF one of the owners to
the appropriation of the property, the want
of consent of the others may be proved by
circumstances. 1t is only necessary to
prove the want of the consent of the person
having care and control OF the property.
Affirmed. White, p. !.
Henry Williams VS.. Moody & Jemison;
appeal FROM Galveston county. 10 enutle
one. too poor to pay costs, to an appeal, the
affidavit should be cOuched in such Ian
guagc as to bring the appellant clearly
WllnlU llle tNlutni llltcullbll VI lIC obdLul'
which allows him to prosecute an appeal on
those terms expressed in article HOO, re-
viscd statutes The affidavit must not only
state that the party desiring an appeal Is
unable TO pay the costs, but that he is 'un-
able TO pay any part thereof Appeal dis
missed. Winkler j.
Frank Robinson vs.. state: appeal from
Parker county. Appellant bought trunk
i'm which was slowed some clothing which
had not been sold him, nor did the seller
Uhc owners clerk know that they were
IN the trunk. Afterwards appellant found
the goods but did not return them untll
compelled to by deputy sheriff. Held,
"lf at the time of the finding the ieloniOus
intent did not exist, though there may
be a subsequent concealment of the goods,
or a denial of all knowledge Of them and
fraudulent appropriation of them, the Of
fence is not larceny, but the jury are the
Judges as to whether the criminal intent CO.
existed with the finding. For the purpose
of showing such intentions inquiries as to
finders conduct ana all circumstances pre-
ceding accompanying or following such
taking are admissible. Affirmed. White,
p. j.
Frank Kernon vs.the state Of Texas; appeal,
from Fayette county. In the ease OF admis-
sions of prisoners in the custody Of an Oiii-
Ger only such facts or circumstances that
are found to be true, which condnce TO es-
tablish his guilt, are admissible, aud that
which was said inconveying the information
Of these facts found to be truel and tending
t. establish guilt are admissible. Reversed
and remandc1. Hurt, /.