The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-02-01

had not properly filed his affidavit.
The motion was sustained and the
proceedings dismissed Held, The
court erred, because, through some
of the sheriff or the Off
Ger taking the oath, the oath of in
complete would not, when used in
time, deprive Ryan of a right of trial
to the property. The amendment of
the affidavit was proper. 20 Texas,
1888; - Texas, ISL. Reversed and re-
manded.-West. j.
Jerrold VS.. state; from Dimmitt
county. See this case as former APP
peal-l1 CHI. app. PIG. This is an or
der of court in the record granting
leave to file the statement of facts
within sixty days after the adjourn
ment of court, but an inspection of
the record discloSes the fact that the
was not filed as the order
required. 1t is therefore improperly
in the record and cannot be considered
by Us. The bill of exception pre-
scribing no question in the absence of
a statement of facts except as to the
of the charge of the court,
and the Indictment and they both
being found without blemish the
Judgment is afiirmed.-White, =. j.
Thomas ct al VS.. State appeal from
Dewitt county.-A bail bond in which
the principal and suretieS are Jointly
and severaliy bound" in "a specific
amount will not when forfeited au-
thOriZe Judgment for the full amount
of the bond against each of the par
ties bound. IL Texas, 241. But be-
cause this rule was violated it would
not follow that this court would re-
verse the Judgment, but would under
article S69, G c. p, reform the same
and render it here. In the appear
ance bond the foundation of the action
herein, the conditions were that said
Thomas should be and appear before
the next term of the district court
& for Dewitt county =
+ to be begun and holden Oh
the 18th day of February, $780," etc.
When this bond was executed the stat
ute in force provided that terms of the
district court of Dewitt county should
be holden son the first Tuesdays in
March and September, and might con-
tinue in session for three weeks
The law did not authorize the holding
of a term of court on the 18th of Feb
ruary. The bail bond having Obli-
gated defendant to appear at term
not authorized by law was void, and
no legal proceedings could be main
tanned upon it. Reversed and dis
White, P.J.
Court of Appeals.
Berry ct al VS.. state; from Dewitt
county.-The error relied upon for re-
VerSal of this cause is the inSufficiency
of the judgment nisi, as follows: THAT
Scire faciaS issue commanding --
to appear at the next term of the dis
trict court of Dewitt county, to be
begun and holden within and for said
county -, then and there to show
cause why this judgment nisi shall
not be made final unless good cause be
shown why said defendant,
Berry, did not appear and answer said
Indictment" Appellants claim that
such words as are after land that
Scire faciaS issue commanding the said
- to appear at the next term" ETC.,
are simply instructions as to what the
Scire facias will contain, but that both
the Scire faciaS and the judgment shall
state that the Judgment will be made
final. Held, The objection urged by
appellant is untenable, and the judg-
ment is affirmed.-Hurt, J.
Hammers VS.. the state; appeal from
Dewitt cOunty.-ThiS is an appeal
from a conviction for wantonly i'm
putting the want of chastity to a
female. The otfenSe was charged by
information, and exceptions thereto
were taken upon the ground that the
words constituting the alleged SIAN
ders were not specifically set forth in
the information. These exceptions
were overruled and appellant con-
victed. Held, 1t was error in the
court refusing to sustain the eXcep-
lions to the information. In charg-
ing the offense herein the alleged
slanderous words must be set out sub
Stantially in the information. IL
ct. App. 1926, II CT. App. 552 Re
verSed and dismisSed.-Willson, j.
Andrews VS.. state; appeal from De
Witt county.-This is an appeal from
a conviction upon charge of aggra-
waited assault. The information
charged that appellant, an adult male,
committed an aggravated assault
upon certain named female. Held,
In order that this conviction be sus-
tanned it was absolutely necessary
that the proof clearly and conclusive
ly show that appellant was an adult
male. A close and careful inspection
of the record disclosed the fact that
the proof is totally in want of testi-
mony as to whether appellant was an
adult male or not, and for this omiS-
sion or insufiiciency of the evidence
the judgment is reversed and re-
manded.-Willson, J. .a.--