The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-05-31
Court of ADUeaIs.

cases were decided by GnlS court as
follows yesterday:
Simlins VS.. Mckee ct al: from Ma
varro COMMUNICATION to reform
Judgment granted.
Owens vs.. Levy ct al; from Navarro
county.-Reversed and remanded.
Oppenheimer VS.. Fritter ct al; in
error from Kinney.-ReverSed and re-
manded.
Sam Hosley VS.. state; from Bell
county.-affirmed
John Conlee VS.. state; from Brazos
county.-Reversed and remanded.
Harry Houston VS.. state; From
Denton cou ty.-Attirmed.
J. NJ. Robertson VS.. state; in error
from Bosque county.-Reyersed and
dismissed.
Heath & Heath vs.. state: from
Johnson county.-Reversed and re-
manded.
Sherman gas company VS.. R. P.
Dicks; from Grayson county.-Re-
Yersed and rendered.
Horton VS.. McKeehan Bros from
Jack county,-Reyersed and re-
manded.
Bower & Lemon ct al VS.. Willett
ct al; from Ellis county.-Reversed
md dismissed.
West VS.. Stare & Winton; from
Cook county.-Reversed and re-
handed.
Haywood & Potts VS., state; from
Bastrop.-Reyersed and remanded.
Price Jallant VS.. st ate; from Bell
Reversed and dismissed.
James Osborne VS.. state; from
Johnson.-Reversed and remanded.
Davey Crockett VS.. stale; from
Falls.-Reversed and remanded.
Robt. Sedberry VS.. state; from
Bosque.-Reversed and remanded.
Burns s. Iourdan VS.. W. W. Batsey;
from Mitcheli.-Reyersed and re-
nanded.
John Lewis VS.. state; from Bell
Reversed and dismissed.
E. c. Terrell vs.. Chas. P. Kellogg
& Co. 1.-TWO cases.. Motion to affirm
On certificate. Submitted.
L. H. Maddox w. state; from Nj
lam contradictions to set aside
Judgment and to withdraw appeal.
Both submitted.
Submitted on briefs for state
Valentine Martinez VS.. state, from
Nueces; Sam Nc ljrOy vs., state, from
Robertson; Leonarez Hernandez Va.
tate, from Nueces county.
In the case of Hosley VS.. state, de-
iendant appeals from conviction OF
he offense Of playa ig at a game with
ards in hous'' or retailing spiri-
tuous liquors. His learned counsel,
in concluding their able brief, appeal
d to the sympathi $ of this court III
he following touching language:
The counsel for this defendant moves
he court of appeals to tears, if possiT
bic, in behalf of this appellant whose
reputation has been called i'll question
by designing men, who by some
means forced their corporal presence
| on an unsuspecting court as a body of
grand jurymen, and presented the bill
Of Indictment when only six members
of the aforesaid body cOpcurred in
| inding the same. 1t is alleged. in
effect, that though he is light in
purse us a gossamer;' and though his
! worldly goods could be compressed
/ Within less compass than an armful
If su!r7taptive matter, even into a
Hutshnli.' etes pc has q reputation at
! stake" "
It is not the fine that he complains
| OF Dull the 'tO0llSn ruling II IRE
county judge" and concurrence OF
the jury" He feels that he has been ID
| the hands of the Phiiistines.
The court fails to perceive, despite
the touching appeal, wherein defend
ant has been wronged. The law was
| clearly violated and deubiy reprehen-
sible in one of his moral reputation
and devotional pietY. That the de-
PENDANT, in an evil hour, fell into the
hands Of theiPhi listines, we doubt not,
but we think his counsel STe mistaken
| as to who were the PhilistineS. They
were not the grand jurors who pre-
sented this Indictment but the eight
fingered" habitues OF tins aCrystal
Saloon" We trust the result of this
prosecution may be beneficial to the
defendant, and cause him in the
/ future to avoid the aIluring tempta-
tions Of the card table. Judgment
| affirmed Wilson, j,
Submitted on oral argument and
briefs of both sides:
/ I.& q. n. Is. B, and Mo, Pacific R'J
Cos. VS.. Pritchard; from Milan coun,
ty; two cases.