Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-22
COURT DECISIONS.
[GALvEsroS TERM, 1888. ]
Court of Appeals.


tried and convicted for theft ofpr0per-
ty OF more value than $50, and his
punishment assessed at two years in
the penitentiary. The record con-
faing no statement of facts, bill OF eN-
trptions nor assignment of error, nor
was there any motion TO quash, nor
motion In arrest OF judgment made,
consequently this court can alone re-
fer 10 the indictment aud charge Of
the court for errors to sustain a rever-
al. The indictment is, In every re-
spect. sufficient, and the charge of the
count Is unobnOxious. The Judgment
IL therefore affirmed.
Thornton vs.. the State--F'rom Dali
las county. Appellant was indicted,
tried aud convicted for au assault with
intent to commit the oflense Of rape,
under article sos, Penal Code. The
assault was clearly proven 10 have
been committed upon female child
between four and five years of age.
The evidence in every respect supports
the verdict. A careful inspection OF
The record shows the indictment to he
good and sufficient, and the charge OF
che court is In all material respects cor
rect, sud the judgment Is affirmed.
Mike Ycacer vs.. the Statc-From
Harris comfy. Appellant was charged
with, tried and convicted on febrliary
u. OF the crime OF burglary, and his
punishment fixed at five years impris-
oument in the penitentiary. From
this conviction he has appealed, and
comes before this court with record
which does not contain q statement OF
facts. bill of exceptions nor assign
ments of errors, and no objections was
a.. I'll s.ly In In
court below, nor was any motion in
arrest Of judgment made. Held, upon
such record this court can do nothing
but affirm the Judgment Affirmed.
Cofiry vs.. the State~-from Cass
County. Opinion by Hurt, j This
is an appeal from judgment Of con-
victior OF murder In the second degree.
'rhc facts upon which the verdict was
found in very way warranted the
iury's finding. The charge Of the
court was full, fair and impartial, and
defendant can not complain of IL, for
IL was MS favorable 10 him as under the
facts he could reasonably expect. A
fair aud impartial trial was had. on
which no errors are apparent. The
questions considered have all been
passed upon by this court IN Maryland
W. the State, published in the Texas
LaU RegietO, No. 10, and as no errors
are apparent the judgment is affirmed.
salterlee ~. the STATE From De
WIt( county. This is an appeal from
a conviction for theft of two horses.
The etate relied for Il conviction alone
upon the fact defendant was in pos
session of the horses recently after
they we're stolen. Held where the
state relies upon recent possession and
the defendant gives a reasonable ac-
count or explanation of his possession
ibe case there made IL completely met,
and 20 make the recent possession
available the state must prove the eX-
lsanation false. The state attempted
this by proving by the party from
whom appellant claimed to have OBJ
tanned the horses that he did not SO get
them. Appellant then proved by sew
s.ral that the said party had told them
he had let appellant have the horses.
Held, this made the second party from
whom appellant got the horses an ac-
complies, and If not, certainly there
was sufficient evidence tending to
thus characterize himas would require
the court to give in charge article All
Df the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Because all the law applicable to the
whole case was not given in charge TO
the jury, the Judgment is reversed and
remanded.
Holden VS.. The State--From Delta
county. Opinion by Hurt, j. APP
t'ellatIt was convicted Of the theft
az the horse of one lvie. The prescott
tion's theory Is that appellant and one
Burton stole the horse, to support
~hieh a witness testified that the
~
and another were seen on the roadsid,
la the creek bottom, n short distance
fxosn Ivie's house. They were not II
the road nor travelling. II was to'
dark to recognize the men, Witnes
spoke 10 them Appellant answerc,
and was recognized by witness, Wit
Mcss asked appellant If he had move,
that day, and was answered in TIA,
affirmative. Witness asked nppelan
what he was doing there, and appel
liant answered he was hunting hi
mare. Appellant moved for u con
tinuance iur the want of teslimpn,
of certain witnesses, who would testif,
that Henderson was with appellant OF
the night of the alleged theft, whci
they were met as above stated. Tha
Henderson travelled with him som
distance past Ivle's house, and that up
pellant did not have Ivie's horse no
wa, Barton with him, The indie,
,nenie was died February >, 1883, ar
apilant was arrested and jailed tn
same day, On the 18th counsel wa
appointed by The court 10 defend th
prisoner, The motion siates ~ 500,
ne.tnld time toeonsult with counsel tn
attachment was issued by the absen
witness returnable instanter. Held
the motion should have been granted
Due diligence WAS shown and the y,
qulrements OF the law fulfilled, RI
rersed and renlanded.