The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-13
THE STATE COURTS.
COURT OF APPEALS.

tOuhl or hIfEhbo.
Conlee vs.. The State; from Brazos cou"-
ty. Opinion by Wilson, !. Conviction for
imputing want to chastity for female.
Held, In a prosecution for his offence the
information, or Indictment must set forth
substantially the language, or whatever
else constitutes the imputation of a want of
chastity. 1t being necessary therefore that
the slanderous words should be "substan-
TALLY" alleged, II follows that they must be
substantially" proven. That in the essen.
tial important, material portion of the SIAN
der as alleged must be proved. Reversed
and remanded.
Luttral vs.. The State; from Jack county.
Opinion by Wilson, ]. Sec % Of the Jury
Act of 1873, laws 10 Leg. p. S2) being
omitted from the Revised Statutes, was
thereby repealed. As the question
OF the admissibility of the evidence at.
tempted to be ELECTED from the witness in
question Is not before us In shape that we
can pass upon 1t. We must hold that there
was no error in the court in excluding Il:
Is Ct. App, 23i). Affirmed. ~
Caldwell vs.. the state; from Eastlapd
county. Opinion by Wilson, !. The in
dictment and conviction in this case Is
based upon article ll3, p. G., which article
must be construed with reference to the
law governing the rendition of property
for taxes; (chap. 2, title XCy, r. 81. In
charging the offence OF refusing, or neg
lecting to make out and render l,st Of
taxable property, the indictment to be suC
ficient, should contain the following aver.
ments:
l. That defendant was person required
by law to render such list.
2. That he held, or owned taxable prom.
erty on the first day OF January of the
year ior which the property is required to
be listed, naming the year.
81. That he was called upon In person by
the assessor Of taxes or his deputy, to rem.
der list Of his taxable property for the wear.
naming the year, and the time
when he was called upon, and,
4. That he refused or neglected to make
out and render such list OF the taxable
property held and owned by him on the
first day of January Of the year for which
he Is called upon to lis; Up. c., art, li3. II.
B.. arts. 4674-75, 10 CT. App, 3l5; ~ Ct,
App, 343). These averments should be
plain, direct, and certain, and not left 10
inference, or made In any such language as
to render them Of doubtful meaning; Il CT,
App, Cos; Ct. App, 605). Reversed and
dismissed.
Ksplsr ct al VS.. the state; from Tom
Green county. Opinion by Wilson, 4
Where q ball bond, or rec ,gnizauce I,
: taken after indictment found, the
very. offence Of which the principal
ntands charged In the indictment must BE-
named In the bond, not the class Of ole 1ces
All that should be required In bond,
enu recoguixAnces taken before YER
dict, y that they shall, In plain Language,
describe some offence known 10 our law
"a this case the bond was taken before In
oiotnent and II would not be vitiated be
caused II failed 70 state the offence o
which the principal In the bond was sub
eequsntly Indicted. The bond in this CAS-,
names no ohsn0e against the laws O
ton state. "Wuful burning IL no
= nomine, Or nscssaaslly:an offence. 1t /
NOT every wilfnll burning that l. denounce,
,.c''ms ~ our code. Reversed and dil
ehsrisld ". The State. Opinion BY WIN
fon,i. An Indictment under afticls'il Z
tassd By LAW without art obtaining ! !