The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-06
THE COURTS.
s,uop,is Of Decisions Of the Courts Of
Last Resort.
Very Important Legal Questions are
Passed Up.
Valuable Addition 10 Legal Libraries,
sUPEEME COURT.

sUPEEME COURT.
Doyalino VS.. the State; from Webb
oopnty. Opinion by Hurt, ]. Conviction
sor forging an order. Though identified by
tSe Witnesses the alleged forged order was
not introduced in evidence. Held error:
Although the conviction was had upon
circums,antial evidence and no charge
unon that phase of the law was given, yet,
ss no objection was taken thereto nor the
emission assisted on in the motion for new
,r;al we are not called upon to reverse
mon that ground. The evidence proves that
me order was forged by some person, that
dsfandaut passed or uttered the order, that
defendant could not write and there was no
nrnof as to who d d forge the order, the
State relying upon the aoove facts to sus-
tain the conviction for forgery. Held, in
sufficient, Reversed and remanded
Brun,r VS. Dubard and Mason; from Falls
county. Opinion by Hurt, j. The distress
warrant in this case was made returnabe
10 the January term of the county court of
Falls county, but rs the subsequent trial, ,
upder order of the court was so amended
as TO substitute February for January
Held not error, the case was returnable TO
the February term, and the amendment
was properly made. April It'll plaintiffs in
distress warrant filed their petition. De-
tenlint moved to dismiss the petition be-
cause not filed in time; the court overruled
Held error. Reversed and dismissed.
Boldly VS. the state, from Kinney county,
opinion by Hunt, j, under the evidence
adduced the facts demanded charge upon
.elfdelense, but an inspection of the charge
AS given it is very doubtful whether or not
the Jury understood the law applicable to
seltdetense. The law applicable to appel
lant's defense is not aflirmativeiy given in
the charge. Reversed and renamed
Bohannon VS., the State, from Austin
county; on rehearlng. Opinion by Wilson,
|. The record containing an entry showing
the return into the court and pre.entme nj
by the grand jury of the indictment, des.
icnated by its file number, which we think
is in compliance with the law. The obiec-
ton that the indictment does not appear to
have been returned into court and record
made of the fact is untenable. GO C. p.
Art 4i5) If evidence is not objected to in
the court below, it cannot be objected to in
this court, and if objected to in the court
below such objection cannot be considered
by this court unless presented by proper
bill of exceptions. Rehearing refused.
Johnson vs.. the State, from Bell county.
Opinion by Wilson, j. The record fails to
show that before sentence was passed
defendant was asked whether he had
to say etc. (Art, 79S G. Q. P) Counsel
insist that this omission is fatal. Held,
there is no provision OF law requiring that
it sh III be anywhere recited, that this ar
ticle Article 1850 G. p has been complied
with, Where the record is silent on the
subject the court is required to presume
that at the time court complied with
its duty and asked defendant the statutory
question. The charge of the court is
not materially erroneous. In explaining
the law as to the elements of an assault il
follows the parallel case of Eigginbotham
VS.. the State, (23 Texas, 575), in which the
acts constituting the assault were very
similar to the acts proved in this case. The
ground of the motion in arrest OF the iudg.
ment not being one allowed by the statute,
and the court did not err in everything it.
Affirmed.
Echos ct al. VS.. McKie ct al; from Ma
varro county. Opinion by Watts, /, adopted
legged the land to be in the Rachael Leach
grant Appellants answered mot guilty."
special plea OF estoppel and suggestion OF
Improvement The court charged the jury:
The defendants by their plea of not guilty
admit that they are in the possession of the
land claimed by the plaintiffs, and
plaintiffs having shown title in themselves
to the land so claimed, and there being nc
other evidence in the case, you will find for
plaintiff" Held, error. The broadest and
most liberal construction that can be given
to the article of the Revised Statutes refer.
ring to the plea of mot guilty." is that by
such plea the defendant admits that he is
in possession of the land described in the
petition. Reversed and remanded
Aabacock VS.. ST. Louis Type Foundry;
from Bexar cou ty. OpiHion by Walker
p. j., adopted. U der the evidence In thi.
case plaintiff either had a lien on the prop
erty, or else was the owner and had bu
leased it to appellant, and 40" ''it'"' =
possession, and if the former, appel
liant cannot complain, al. q. "a,
ter, his complaints on account o
plaintiffs sacrifice of his owl
in order to pay defendants debt, are cap
tious. and ought no to prevail to the re
versal OF the courts decree. Affirmed.
Cox ct al vs. Lick; from Falls county
Opinion by Watts, j. The certificate by
Writ Tie Ot which to- patent exists should b,
recited in n; (llnt's Dig, Art. 1858, ct seq,
Arts l9Jl. 2Ol4 2lS6 ct passlm: $685. 396
o. seq, In ependent of the requirement.
OF the statute in this respect, the paten
which is the evidence of the final severanc,
of the land from the public domain, aud o
It's grant by the sovereign dover to pri
vae Individual, should state the consider
alton on which il is based, and fully ideB
THY the authority on which it rests, and b,
virtue of which 1t is made. The deed from
Abel to Ray was sufficiently proved I,
admit OF its introduction in evidence as al
ancient strument. Other questions ar
noticed and dismissed. Affirmed. with di
recuOns to retax costs.
CoLMIssIoN OF APPEALS
leases reported below are consent case
aud the awards therein by the commission
ers are tinal.-RFP
Pearson & Phillips vs.. Boyd from Lime
tIne county Opinion by Watts, AL
ticle 1857, Revised Statutes, provides tina
the pleadings shall consist of statement
In logical and legal form, of the facts con
shutting the plintltf's cause Of action an,
defendants ground of defence. Merely u,
ser;ing that one party was the warrantor Q
another, aud that the owner claimed som
title or inter st IN the land, uoes not CON
ply with the statute. The facts of whic
thu pleader's right of action con
sists. against the defendant Is no
stated in logical and legal form.
pleader must state the facts in which hi
right consists. Ii it Is necessary for tn
protection OF the rights Of defendant tha
other persons, who have joint interes
with p aintiff, should be brought before tn
the court, he may cause this to be don,
but IL such case 1t should be in the natul
OF " cross act,on, or bill against the plainti
or such third party; (Baily VS., rrammel
n rexas 1861 Asa cross-action, the pie
herein is Insufficient H. fails to show th,
1t Is necessary for the protection of plail
TINS rgh that Phillips be made = part
to h" SUIT nor $ 1t made TO appear that
had Join interest with Pearson in the su
!"c' matter Of the litigation or any inter
In common with him by which the right
appellee could he prjudiced, Revers,
and remanded
Johnston & Park W burst; from Lin
stone county Option by Delany, II
Judgment upon which appellee relies, vest
IN his vendor, "a tract of land in Ltt
county, describing 1t by mees aud bounc
~ makes no men Ton ot the Ger ,ticale
virtue OF winch the land was located.
could have been no uore eilrc ual 10 v,
such title, than would have been cnnve
ance OF the same hand to appellee's vend
M the grantee Ut the CerhtCa'e /
nj TINT can Ia, said IN TINT the ind pmp