The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-02-10
LEGAL LORE.
Excellent Synopsis of the Decisions Of
the Appellate Courts.
A Flood of Light Cast on Obscure
Legal hooks, and
the Crooked Paths Strengthened for
Justices Feet.
Other Very Entertaining Subject.Matter

Appellant was convicted of murder OF III
second degree and sentenced to five yeai
imprisonment in the penitentiary. Psnt
ing thus appeal he, with others, escape
from custody, and after being pursued som
distance was re-captured and returned I
prison. The sheriff of Smith county there
upon makes affidavit of such above state,
facts and filing such with this court, tn
states attorney comes and moves diSmis
sal OF the appeal for the reason of escape
Held, the record bearing the motion on
and being in strict compliance with the re
quremeDts of the statute, 1t must be sus
tanned and this appeal dismissed, and 1t il
so ordered. Appeal dismissed. White, p. ]
Wicks VS., the Stale; from LavaC,
county. This is an appeal from a judg
ment of conviction for adultery. The in
diG.ment is in every respect good and sufi
Gent The charge OF the court being full
fair and impartial, cannot be questioned
The evidence is conclusive rs to the guilt o
appellant, and we see no error whatever o
which appellant can complain, Appellant
relies for reversal upon the orr0a Of .he
court in refusing to grant new uial, on
the ground that the evidence fails to sup.
port the verdict in this that the evidence
should, if there was any adulterous utter.
course II, all, it was while they lived to.
gether, and was not without living to.
gether" as charged in the Indictment The
appellants idea seems to be that ii the par.
ties lived together they could not be con
victed of habitual carnal intercourse.
Held, this proposition is wholly untenable.
Affirmed White, p. j.
Bell vs. the State fiom Tarrant county.
This is an appeal from Judgment Of con.
victon Tor the theft OF money of the value
of $50, belonging t. one Peter Ross.
Though wholly circumstantial, the evidence
to us seems amply sufficient to support the
verdict. The indictment ism all its respects
according to established presidents, and is
unobn0Xious to objection. The charge OF
the court is full, fair and impartial, and in
all its essential requirements meets our
approval as correct The trial Was emf
nently fair and impartial, and the appellant
cannot justly complain of the conviction.
A careful examination of the record fails TO
show us any error whatever committed by
the court, and such being the case, we can
not but affirm the Judgment. Affirmed.
Wilson, j.
Boykin vs., the State; from Polk county. Ap-
pellant comes before this court upon appeal
from @ Judgment of conviction for man
slaughter The evidence showed that de.
ceased had on the morning before the kill
ING gone 10 the house of appellant and
threatened to whip him. That at the time
just previous to the killing appellant came
up to where deceased was, when deceased
accused him ofstealing meal from deceaseds
smokeh0use, Thereupon appellant called
deceased a liar, when deceased made an as
sault upon appellant with q small piece of
pine board. Appellant fled, pursued by de-
ceased, and upon coming together deceased
hit appellant on the head with the board,
when appellant drew an old case knife and
cut deceased, from which wound he died.
Held, the evidence amply supports the yer.
dict. The record fails TO discover to us any
error OF which appellant can complain, and
the judgment is affirmed. Hurt, /.
Maddox VS., the State; from Milan
county. dor this case upon former appeal
see u CT. App, 400. Upon this appeal
appellant seeks to reverse the conviction
Tor theft OF mare belonging TO one lsaacks.
The charge OF the court below upon the
last trial was fair impartial and without
error preiudcial to appellants rights.
While in some respects the evidence is cir
cumstantial, yet II is not entirely so, and
amply supported the verdict. The indict-
ment is good and sufficient in all its re-
spccts. There are many assignments OF
errors taken, but after most careful
searching of the record we fail to see that
any of them are tcnable or that any error
whatever has been committed which in
any way preludices the appellant, and the
Judgment is affirmed. Hurt, /.
Ludiker ct al. VS.. Ratio & Co.. from Gal
weston county. Only one of the defendants
has been served with the petition or citation
il error, Held, il is expressly required by
the statute that ii there be more than one
acopy OF the citation must be served on
each; (lsey, Stat, art, 1880 Defendants be-
ing partners does not affect the question.
Service fcitation upon one of several part
ners, plaintiffs against whom writ of error
has been taken, is not sufficient. All de-
PENDANTS in error must be served, az Tex,
l2S The writ of error must be dismissed
unless 1t appears that all defendants in err.
ror were cited Error will not be consid-
cred unless all Of the parties defendant are
properly brought before the court; (55 Tex,
42I % Tex, 60i ~ Tex, Sj.) Motion to
dismiss sustained and writ of error dis
missed. White, p. !.
Focke X wilkins vs.. Hunt from Calves
ton county. Appellee sued appellant for
tho proceeds Of certain cotton shipped by
him through his agent, w. q. Hunt. Ar
pellantS placed the amount of the proceeds
70 the credit OF W. c. Hunt, their debtor.
W. O. Hunt, as agent, had authority to
ship the cotton and receive the proceeds.
Appellants knew the cotton BELONGED
to appellee, Judgment for appellee,
Held, Hunt, as the agent, had authority
only to receive the proceeds of cotton Ii,
money, An agent with authority to re-
'oeive payment IN money, cannot extin.
guish the debt due to his principal by nav
ment in'anything but money. The credit.
ing OF the agents account with the proceeds
OF the sale Of the principals cotton was moi
apayment that would bind the principal
Appellants knowing to whom the cotton
belonged, became directly responsible &c
him; ~ Tex, 46l II Tex, 76D. Affirmed
Wilson, j.
Synopsis Of Opinions of tho Supreme Court
Galveston Term. 1883.
Woods VS.. Robinson ct al; from Iavacc,
county, The question as to what surve,
the land in controversy being one of fac
II is unnecessary 10 discuss II, beyond say
ing that II comes within the Neil survey
IL being the weakest the call for distanc
must lie controlled by the call for the Hor
ton survey, (28 Tex, $50; so idem, 257l
Where q survey calls for adjoining grant
Astounding 1t, without dispute as to fou
sides, and whore five corners are cs,ab
lished, its boundaries must bc determine,
by the calls for such adjacent grants, and b,
Some line run so rs to establish the sixth
corner as called for, and from that corne
run the closing lines regardless n cours
and distance, II necessary, 50 as to embrac
within the line OF patent all the land Gale,
for lying between the grant rs constitutin
the other boundaries Of such grant; (i6 Tex
2S5 Il Tex, $40, and authorities thcr
cited) A call for corner ascertained b
marked lines interseo ing at such cornc
Will prevail over call for distance an
quantity; (57 Tex, S3l). Affirmed. West,
One Way of Proposing.