The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-02-22
nnrnr nrcialnna


nh murder In order 10 sustain q cohN'ot" n |
lar assault with iutOnt TO mutuw' on IN. |
tent 10 inniot serious bodily INJURY w lthc !
inniction Of such without Ah ihWnl Jmur. !
dnr ia mi sufficient. IL MA assault oe com.
WI ,,,ith intent to inlet sCrlO ds hodiy
iniurv and the result OF that assault be-
aaat5 surder would be the crime. Yet
such being the intent ana ue' g.! not eusu'
inc the assault is not one with intent TO
murder. The intent to m drde. constitutes
the essence OF the ollie use, and nothing
short of that intent, AN sustain conyc-
ton for an Gssau'S Oh intent TO murder
Reversed and rem .ded. White, p, J.
Gillaspie VS. ., o state; from Walker
county. In this case we have the single
question presep ted, can pa1y be legally
convicted of Az assault With Intent 10 muir
der, without 1t is already shown that he IN,
tended to take the life of the assallea party
And, further, if the intention IL SHOWN 10
be 70 commit serious oodlly hlrih, anu , ~.
to take life, is the party guilty oil an ASSAULT
with intent to murder Held, the assault
must be prompted by the specific intent 10
kill in order to sustain a conviction lor as
saut with intent to murder. GIN criminal
law when special intent, beyond the nat
ural consequences of the thing done, Is es-
sential TO the crime charged, such intent
must be pleaded, found or proved j. 10
Wis, 90; White vs.. the State; decided 90
last TYLER term). Reversed and remanded.
Goree VS.. Dupree; from Walker county
Defendant in error, applied TO the county
Judge for premptory mandamus 10 COM
pei plaintiff in error, superintendent OF the
penitentiary, to approve an account iot
S75. said to be due Tor conveying q convict
TO the penitentiary. The jurisdiction Oh
the court was pleaded TO and the plea over
ruled. Held art. g. sec. Is, OF the consiltu-
ton, is the only provision OF law governing
in such cases ana therein the power " lssue
the writ of mandamus is confined 10 cases
where it is necessary tor the enforcement
of the courts Jurisdiction. To authorize
the issuance of the writ, the court must
have Jurisdiction of the subject matter.
The amount claimed herein $50 not being
within the jurisdiction OF the county court,
that court, therefore, had not authority 10
issue the writ of mandamus, it was there
fore allegal. and without authority. lie
versed and dismissed. Wilson, j.
Handel VS.. Kramer; from WEBB county.
If parties appealing their cases to TINS
court desire their errors assigned passed
upon they must be specifically and partic
niarIv pointed out in their assignments OF
error, in accordance with the supreme court
rnles' and repeated decisions constituting
them. RULES Sup. Ct, "a, % and 70; A
Tex, $50; Al Tex, 5i4; 40 Tex, 234; 40 Tex,
as; 81 Tex, 266; So Tex, 2l3; % Tex, 5ioi
81 Tex, As; "a Tex, 2Sl; 90 Tex, 5I). Inc
court eTTbu III ICluolb5 w 6ifN NA'N
charges asked and refused, they were APP
plicable and were demanded by the issues
made in the cause and the legal PROPOSE
tions therein contained were substantially
correct. The court also erred in taxing the
entire costs in both the justice and county
court against appellant, as the Judgment
obtained by appellee in the county court
was less than that obtained in the justice
court: REV. Stats, art. 1872. Reversed
and reminded, Wilson, J.
Jesse Dyson VS.. the State; from Orange
county, The charge complained OF, reads
''If from the evidence the jury believe be,
yopd a reasonable doubt that defendant ana
. fire upon, shoot and kill Lewis
jackson, and that at the time he SO shot
and killed Lewis Jackson, that Lewis JACK
son was making an unlawful and violent
assault upon Isaac Dyson, under clrcum-
stances by which the defendant might nave
re lsonably inferred that it was the lnten-
ton of Lewis Jackson to take the life oil
Isaac Dyson or do him some serious bodily
injury, and that defendant acting and be-
ing induced by fear of such danger to the
life and person OF Isaac Dyson ut the hands
of Lewis Jackson by such violent attack,
shot and killed Lewis Jackson, ana that IN
SO doing he used no more force IMAM was
necessary reasonably under the facts and
circumstances surrounding the difficulty or
assault, then defendant would be lustlheu,
etc. Held, the charge is radically errone-
<oSs. The jury is not required TO Delieye
excuTDSry facts beyond reasonable
doubt to authorize an acqulttal. Inc uoc-
trne of reasonable d ubt is applicable
alone to criminative facts, and these the
Jury must believe beyond reasonable
doubt Reversed and remanded. Hurt, J.
Futta ct al. vs.. Latfere, from Fayette
county. The judgment by default entered
in the lower court was erroneous because
entered in the county court upon citation
comma ding appellant to appear before
the district court; Or. S. art. l2l5; 70 Tex,
a6N There was error also in rendering
Judgment against appellant alone without
making any disposition OF the cause rs 10
all the defendants who had been served
with similar citations. But one final Judg-
ment can be rendered in suit Some dis
position of the cause should have been
made as TO each and all of the defendants
simultaneously, otherwise no valid final
Judgment is entered; (Rev. stat, Isl
Tex, l39: 80 Tex, 402; 40 Tex, 400, As Tex,
ON Reversed and remanded. Wilson, ].
Starnes vs., The State, from Smith county.
Appellant was convicted Of murder oil the
second degree and Sentenced TO five years
imprisonment in the penltentlary. Pend
ing thus appeal he, with others, escaped
from custody, and after being pursued some
distance was re-captured and returned 10
prison, The sheriff of Smith county there !
upon makes affidavit of such above stated
facts ana ming such with tbls court the /
states attorney comes and moves dismis- |
sal of the appeal for the reason Of escape. |
Held, the record bearing the motion out
and being in strict compliance with the re- /
ouirements of the statute, it must be sus-
tanned aud this appeal dismissed, and 1t Is |
20 ordered. Appeal dismissed. White, p.J
Wicks vs.. the State; from Layaca |
county. This Is an appeal from judg |
ment of conviction for adultery. The in
dctment is in every respect good and sufil-
cient. The charge Of the court being full,
fair and impartial, cannot be questioned.
The evidence is conclusive as 10 the guilt OF
appellant, and we see no error whatever oil
which appellant can complain, Appellant
relies for reversal upon the erros OF the
court i'm refusing TO grant new trial, on
the ground that the evidence fails TO sup
port the verdict in this that the evidence
should. IL there was any adulterous inter-
course at all, il was while they lived to-
0etber. and was not "without living to.
getberh as charged in the Indictment The
appellants idea seems to be that II the par
ties lived together they could not be con-
yicted Of habitual carnal intercourse.
Held, this proposition is wholly untensble.
Affirmed. White, p. j.
Bell VS.. the State; ffom Tarrant county. /
This Il an appeal from judgment OF con-
yiction for the theft OF money Of the value
OF $50, belonging { one. Peter Ross
Though wholly circumstantlali the evidence
a. rs seems amply sufficient TO support the
verdict. The indictment ism all is respects
according 20 established precedents, and is
unobnOrious 10 objection. The charge Of
the court Is full, fair and impartial, and In
AL its essential requirements meets or
approval As correct. The tfiAl IVES emil
nef,tiv fsir and impartial. and the appellant
cannot Justly complain Of the conviction.
Al careful examination Of the record fails 10
show Us any error whatever committed BY
the court, and such being the case. We can
mt but affirm the Judgment. Affirmed.
wlls1n, ]. s.-..s..- p,,, .ouu,v