The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-09
THE COURTS.
COURT OF APPEALS.

the insurance policy was IA chose IN action,
aud could not he garnished, and rendered
judgment against appellant. Held correct.
Affirmed.
Abeel VS.. Matthews, Massey ami Blades;
from McLennan comfy. This is a SUIT by
appellees against appellant, for work done
and labor performed in painting Il house.
There were objection made to the charge
OF the court below, but no exceptions were
taken thereto and reserved by proper bills,
and no additional charges were asked. and
taken as a whole, the charge embodied the
law of the case, and appellants cannot com
plain. The evidence sustains the verdict,
and there is no error in the judgment. Al.
firmed.
Lewis Davis VS.. the State, from Lavaca
county. This is at appeal from convic'
ton Of assault with intent to murder John
Riley, in which the penalty was assessed at
five years IN the penitentiary. A careful
inspection of the record shows appellant to
have been fairly and legally convicted upon
amply sufficient legal evidence. The indict
ment is in every way sufficient add the
charge of the court is correct. There is no
error and the judgment is affirmed.
Hill VS.. the State from Walker county.
This is conviction for the theft of IA horse
wherein the penalty assessed against APP
pellant was five years imprisonment in the
penitentiary. The indictment upon which
the conviction was had is sufficient; the
charge Of the court below is full, fair, i'm
partial and correct, the evidence amply
sustains the verdict and judgment. Now
it is, therefore, affirmed.
Watson VS.. the State; from Neuces coun-
ty. Appellant was convicted in the court
below for forgery, by altering a writ
ten instrument by inserting above
the signature therein an order for
five dollars. The record does not contain
either a bill of exceptions or statement of
facts. In such case we can only look to the
record and if the indictment and charge of
the court are correct the Judgment muat
be affirmed. Such is true OF this case. AT
irmed.
Bill Burkham vs.. The State; from Hop
kins county. Appellant was convicted in
the court below of the theft OF mule be-
longing to one Haysett, and his punish
ment was assessed at five years imprison-
ment in the penitentiary. AS the record is
presented to this court there is therein no
statement of facts, bill of exceptions nor
brief for appellant, and in their absence, no
error being discovered, the judgment is ai-
iirmed.
Fannie Slater VS.. the State; from Marion
county. Conviction for keeping a disoT-
DERBY house and fine assessed ut 500. Held
The motion of the states attorney to dis
miss the appeal must be sustained First =
Because there il M recopnizance in the
record IN oive tho court ;ur;sd;c,;on of tho
case and s.condNRecanss there 10 not snch
final iudyment 40 10 reou;rad Inv rt;cla
sos. Criminal Court Procedure in that do.
Iendant was not nrasent at Tho trial and
there was M order THAT caniaa issue
forthwith commandinr tho sheriff to arrest
The Defendant and commit Ear 10 mil until
such fine and costs ware Maid - "a nnnai
dismissed ''' p"''' Np'0"'
Hammell VS. tbe State from Hill countv
Appellant appeals from n conviction for tHe
thar of S50 The onlv matar;oi n,oa,;nn
in The % case l. as IN tho ci;nn 81 ~
overrniing the annjica,i ion for a continm ~,
ance m The pround of absent witnaasos
Held. There Il no error in ihe conv;ct;nn
nor in the sction of The court in refnsins
| the continuance. The desired evidence 70
he obtained seams not In have bsen mo- W.
bablv true, when viewed in the Iieht Of ths
evidence adduced mon Tho trial of Tho
cause. Affirmed '"' WAN - WIG
Gin Bnrkham va tbe State from
Hopkins county. AnnelIsnt was
charged Jointly with one BilI Bprse
ham for ths theft of ' MI
belonging to one Hogsett. There ia no
statement of facts, nor bill of exceptions in
the record and the Indictment and charge
OF the court being sufficient, the Judgment
is affirmed.
Hassell VS.. the State, from San Jacinto
county. Appellant was convicted of as.
saultlng his wife. The exceptions taken Ia
the charge of the court are not tenable. The
question OF intent was fairly submitted tc
and found by the Jury against defendant,
and there being no error apparent The
judgment is affirmed.
Rogers VS.. Goodrich & Clarkson. from
, Falls county. This is suit on note. tn,
holder claiming to be nm in
nocent purchaser before maturity. Defenc,
pleaded was want of consideration
The question as to notice of his defence 4
p the holder of the note before he bouph
, being raised, there was no error in submit
ting this issue to the Jury and there bein
sufficient evidence to sustain their iindmo
| and there being no error apnarpnt tn
q Judgment is affirmed. 'f'' '' w.