The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-05-29

tAN NkA>lhturt DAn
ROVER TO authorize the original issue "s
S9eh land certificates as ISSUED 10 WiI,a,,
manner oy reason OF any equity or rish,
Sh.Va ne al some future time NAV have
hai' Reversed and remanded.
COURT OF APPEALS
IN Forrest vs. the State, from Hill countv
! nus Is = conviction for the murder al ~
morgan. The punishment WAS assessed AZ
we've years imprisonment. There was
no error IN the courts charge, or in the 10
,' uSn VI Ihe court TO give the special instruc.
So; "sAeu, Tue evidence is amply sui
Hcieht 10 support the verdict. There was
no error in the court refusing 10 sion ths
ulai OF the cause Tor service of a copy of The
Neuire AFTER both parties had auuounced
ready Tor trial. Affirmed.
~, Neroer VS.. the State, from Bell county
rms Is convection for selling liquor on AN
election day. There is no statement of facts
IN the record. The indictment is in every
respect sufficient. The charge of the court
Is uhoonoxious, ana there appearing no
error III the Judgement, it is affirmed.
niuhrossn VS.. the State; from Ellis
oouuty. ms Is conviction for keepin, a
case Is as to whether or not it is penal 10
use licensed table for gaming purposes
hein Upon the authority of Reeves vs..
Tue state, az Court Appeal, 1891 and Parker
vs.. me state. decided at last Tyler term, the
convection must be sustained. Affirmed.
r, LasSi vs. the State; from Johnson county.
ms Is conviction for the THEFT of one
quart 81 whisky. The questions raised and
decided are /. The information was
passed on affidavit made before ius.
Sce oi the peace, the athant having
n peeh compelled to make same. y,
hne state was permitted to prove
HTlAhprp n ha x,yl., 4
losing this. 3. The court gave n verbal
charge, but no exceptions to its sufiiciency
were taken, ana this court cannot saw the
court erred IN refusing charge asked, for it
inay nave been given in verbal charge. as
the court asserts 1t was. 4. The evidence
establishes the THEFT, and defendant con.
iessed it. There being no error, the iudg.
ment is affirmed. ''h
Callahan VS.. The State, from Robertson
county. This is "A conviction fer uulawfullv
carrying pistol, Appellant pleaded former
acquttai, put there was a conflict of eyi.
ushce as 10 whether or not it was the same
onehse' There is evidence sufficient to sup
port the hnding that it was not: the courts
charge is sufficient and the Judgment is
affirmed. 10
Leyeideoker vs.. the State; from Bell
county. This is II conviction for keeping a
gaming table. There being no exceptions
IN me record to the action of the court in
oVerruling the application for continuance
IL cannot be revised. 1t does not appear
mat defendant testified before the grand
Jury about the transaction for which he was
inuicted and on trial, and that portion OF
us defence is unavailable. Affirmed.
Rowland VS.. the State; from Bosoue
county. THIS is conviction for unlawfully
carrying pistol. There is no error in the
,..A.
the evidence amply sufficient, and
there is but one error in the cbsrr.
OF the court which is, "if the iury have :
reasonable doubt of the guilt, or Innocence
OF defendant, they will acquit' but deien
can't cannot complain of this error, because
the charge was given at his request and wa.
moro favorable 10 him than the law iusti
fled. Affirmed. '''''
washington VS.. the state from Falls conn
ty, Conviction for assault on Lsnk Wash.
ington with pole, alleged to be a dead,
weapon. The charge of the court was Oh
lected 10 because 1t instructed the iur,
mat the use of a dangerous
weapon, or the semblance thereof In al
angry, or thrs atening manner with inten
10 alarm anoiher was an assault. The
court also told the jury that to constitute
an assault in this case, an aggravated one
the proof must show that it was committee
with deadly weapon, as alleged in the il
dlctment. Held. The charge was correct
| Inc court did not err in refusing the she
clal instructions asked. (P. G. article 4S9.
Affirmed ''''
Drye vs. the State, from Maverick conn
ty; opinion by White, d. j. An indictmen
Tor murder must set forth the means h,
which the life was cxtinguished." hence
1t was by weapon it must say what tn
weapon was, or allege it to be unknown tc
the grand jury. lfit describes the killinl
as done IN way. requiring no weapon
none other need be mentioned. TIL
particulars OF the weapon, as that il was O
such length or breadth, need not be give,
70 say mat 1t was "a certain wooden stick.
will suffice. And if stones be used. thei
number need not be stated. A "Ioade,
pistol" will do. e Bst. Grim. Proc. 3 Id
Sec. 52i State vs. Williams; SO. Tex; 35:
Dwyer VS. State; II, CT. App; 535. Peter
son vs.. state; II, ct. App, $50. Reverse
and dismissed.
Green vs.. the State; from Walker county
Opinion by White, p. j. Both parties La,
accepted and passed upon twelve jurymen
who we're in the box and ready to try TN
cause, when the district attorney state,
that he had failed to ask each OF them
they were biased or prejudiced in favor o
against defendant" Over objection tn
court allowed the question to be asked, an
four oil the 1urymcn answered yes, and th
court stood them aside. The district al
torney Then Withdrew his request and tn
Jurymen were allowed to stand, but th
court then of its own motion stood the fou
jurymen aside. Held, error. The psrtie
having the right to waive the cause an,
thereby rehabitate the juror, the court can
not OF its own motion, deprive them of thi
right. Reversed and remanded.
Holandvs. the state. from Mason county
opinion by White, p. ], An indictment
good when charging that Ruff Holland di
have habitual carnal intercourse with on
Kate Scott, she, the said Kate Scott bein
then and there female and legally marie,
to another person, and he, the said Holland
being male" etc. In criminal cases it /
not necessary to set out in the judgmen
the oath which was administered TO tn
jury which tried the case, a statement tina
the jury were 'sworn according to law" be
ing all that is necessary to show that the,
were sworn, but If it is attempted to set on
the oath, then If it as set out is not tn
one prescribed by statute, the Judgment will
be reversed. Reversed and remanded.
Shaw vs.. Garvin, from Collin county
Opinion by White, p. j. Two or NOR,
writings executed conteniporaneously be
tween same parties respecting the sam
transaction, are deemed one instrumen
and: one contract. In genera, ranel evi
denoe is ina lmissabe TO vary writer
contract, but such evidence is admiss
ible to exI lain an ambiguity or explain
a writing when the explanation is necessar,
and the evidence is admitted with the writ
ing and to ascertain the intention of tn
parties when doubtful, or to explain tn
language or terms used. Affirmed
Hernandez VS.. the State; from Nuece
county. Opinion delivered by Hurt /
This is a conviction tor the theft of hors
belonging to one Dority. The evidenc,
upon which the conviction was based i
amply sufficient to sustain the verdict an,
judgment. The charge is correct and tn
Judgment must be aiiirmod,as the court die
not err in refusing the motion for con
tinuance, just because there was not sui
fcient diligence shown; and, second, be
cause II the desired testimony had beef