The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-05-10
Synopsis of Opinions of Court of Appeals
Austin Term, 1882.

William Scribner VS.. the State; from
Tarrant county. When the indictment
alleges that the defendant "did unlawlully
play game of cards in public place,
contrary to law" etc, if the playing was
done at place other than those specified
by law, sufficient facts must be alleged to
show that the place was public. The stat.
utory provision that "whcn to constitute
an offence an act must be done in Il public
place. II is sufficient to alege that the act
was done in public place, ;" had not gone
into effect when this indictment was found.
reversed and remanded. White, y. /.
j. ii. Boone vs.. the State; from Wilson
county. The local option law, when con.
additionally in force, repeats parts of and
all laws conflicting with IL in the locality of
Its operation. Therefore, the occupation
TAX on retail liquor dealers, imposed by the
general law, does not operate in those
localities where the local option law is in
force. This prosecution having been
brought under the repealed statute, which
provided for the sale OF spirituous liquors
IN quantities of quart aud less than five
gallons, all offenders against the law are
exempt from punishment Reversed aud
dismissed, White. y. /.
Charles Wade vs.. the State from Bcyar
county, The single fact that the showing
ior continuance WAS technically good
WOULD not entitle party to the same for
the granting of the motion is within the
discretion OF the court, even on first
application. II held insufficient ON
amo,ion Tor new trial, when brought be,
tore this court, 1t must appear that the cor
reotnesS OF the action Is involved both as
to materiali,y and probable truth The
FORMS, under the common lease indiCt.
ment bill, in the acts of the seventeenth
legislature, are purposcd to include the use
OF other forms according TO statutory def.
nitions aud well accepted preccdents. Ill
the accused is under II years, II is a matter
OF defense, and that he is an adult male,
need not be alleged. When the victim is
knocked senseless, rs in this case,
penetration, IN exception TO the
general rule, can be proved by circumstap.
'ial evidence. The diabolical results are
quickly ioreseen We're these human brutcs
TO escape, because the victim could not
swear conclusively TO the act of penetra.
u0h, as she was Unconscious during the nc.
complainant, Affirmed. White, y. /.
T. Il i. II. X. VS., II. q. Langham IRON
Grayson county. The court below erred in
assuming the injury OF the horse in It's
Charge, and In not granting counter.
cnmge calling its attention TO the rror, |
DTeN., NJ. And II was error, in the sec. |
was liable Tor the services of the horse. In |
o. Tex, 933, 1t is held that, 1.-THE value of
we stock Killed or injured is the measure
OF damages under the statute X. s. 42iS, |
IN the last paragraph, the court not only |
assumes that the calf was killed but in. |
Mructs the jury that the plaintiff Is on. |
uted TO It's value not TO exceed the amount |
claimed as It's value For failure TO riys |
the law appplicable TO the facts, and for |
"a h.. y
Judgment Is reversed and rcmandcd '
White, p.i.
:, Texas n Pacific railroad VS.. T, ], WI.
lialns; from Grayson county, One of sew. |
eral joint owners cannot maintain A suit ia |
recover his individual or undivided interest
IN the property destroyed, - Texas. ma.
The measure OF damages for property de.
suoycd, is the market value OF the pro.
pcrty ut the time and place when DESTROYED.
~ Texas, i0i The court should have
Informed the jury us to what
value. 81 'v Texas e my These To, market iSS.
were raised by the evidence aud the conr,
iaued TO submit them 10 the Jury, and,
upon iallsre. the deiundent submitted ap. |
propriate instructions, which were refused |
reversed and remandod. Winklor, /.
Felipe Moncullo vs. the state, nnpenl 1
nom Nueces county. Thu Language of The |
court below when ruling out certain cyi. |
uence anu before the jury, that 1.-THE court |
IL compelled TO regard him Chc witness
sought " be, introduced), as a principal
offender !, having been shown
that he acted together with the
defendant on trial In
the commission Of the oflense charged,
and Tor tiis reason the court cannot permit
the said Rich TO testify Is held Az m,
court OF appeals TO be calculated Ia nreiti.
dice the Jury Us 10 the defendant. 10 II
Appeals, iIJ. The language very plainly
indicates TO the jury that, IN the opinion Of
tbc9udre, not only that the preferred wit.
meas. but also The defendant then on trial
we're au...y cr tho thief, cb..r,l , ~.,n.s ~