The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-03-29
COURT DECISIONS.
synopsis OF Opinions OF the Court of Ap-
meals Galveston Term 1894

Heidenheimer Bros vs.. Franklin; from
Galveston county. An incoming partner
does not by his entry into the firm per Sc,
become liable for the existing debts of the
firm, although he becomes memb and is
responsible for future liabilities. If the in.
coming partner agrees to pay the existing
Liabilities, such agreement is binding as
between the partners, but the benefits do
not accrue to the creditor. In order to rem
der an incoming partner liable to the cred
itors OF the old firm, there must be some
agreement to that elect catered into. AT
tirmed. Wilson. j.
Pinktord We. the State; rom Polk county
motion for continuance being presented
The question alone is as to its suilciency
IN law, In first applications the law does
not require defendant to state, that the
testimony cannot be procured from any
other source known TO defendant" This
statement is only required in subsequent
applications, When the defense is an albi,
because the evidence is cumulative is no
reason for its exclusion, but more greater
reason why 1t should be admitted. The
court erred in admitting the allegations of
the wiie's petition for divorce to 30 to the
Jury, especially without an explanation as
To the extent and purpose it should be con-
sidcred. The court erred also in decreeing
the judgment of divorce admissible because
u was rendered some months previous to
the commission of the oflense. Reversed
and remanded, Whitep.j /.
Williamson vs.. the STATE; from Navarro
county. There are exceptions to the rule
that evidence of u distinct oflense cannot
be admitted in support of another oilense,
and such exception applies where in cases
1t relates to knowledge or intent of the
party as to some material fact which,
though apparently collateral had some
hearing on the material ormain fact. Where
the indictment alleges the stolen steer to be
an estray, the owner of which the grand
jurors did not know, and that such estray
was in the possession OF A., the prosecr-
ton must go Tar enough to show that the
grand jury did not know the owner and
could not have fosnd him out by use of or
binary diligence And where the proofs
show ownership i'll A. and possession, mau-
agement and control in b., the want of con.
sent OF both must be shown. If the evil
dence OF the parties is not obtainable, and
such fact is shown, proof of such fact OF
| want OF consent can he made by circum-
| stantial evidence Bowling vs.. State, 4
| Texas Law Review, i9). Reversed and re-
handed Wilson, J.
Neyland VS., the State; from Orange
county. Returns upon writs endorsed by
the sheriff simply mot executed or mot
found, are not in compliance with the law,
and when the evidence is shown TO be mate-
rial, such a return upon the writ will
authorize the court in granting continu.
ance, the same as though the process had
NOT been returned. Ii the evidence shows
the homicide to be nothing but murde no
| charge on any other degree but that of the
first degree The court liz not authorized
to charge upon manslaughter if the pr of
shows only murder OF the first " second
degree, Without evidence OF an ADEQUATE
cause IT would be improper to charge upon
mansiaughter. Reversed aud remanded,
White, r., ].
Yeager vs.. the,Stato, from Harris county.
THIS is an appeal from u Judgment of con.
vlction for the theft of property of more
value than $50. As the record contains no
statement of facts, bill of exceptions nor
assignment OF errors, nor does it show that
any motion in arrest, or TO Quash, the
court therefore, can only look TO the in.
dictment and charge of the court, and find.
inS both these instruments obnoxious to
auy objection raised against them, the
judgment is therefore affirmed.
Thornton VS.. the State; from Dallas
county. This is an appeal from the judg.
ment of conviction for an assault with IN.
tent to rape, under Art. sos, Penal Code
The evidence clearly proves the attempt 10
rape clearly to have been made upon a 10.
male child between 4 auu years of age.
The indictment upou whicn the verdict
was found is sufficient; the charge of the
cour, is clear exposition Of the law appll.
cable to the case, and the Judgment is
Affirmed
Mike Ieagcr VS.. tho State: from Harris
county. This Is an appeal from judg.
n,.. t.N 4
which the punishment was assessed a, live
years imprisonment. Appellant comes be-.
fore this court with a record that does not
contain a statement OF facts, bill OF excep.
ton or assignment OF errors, and no obiec.
ton was interposed TO the indictment or
charge OF the court. Held, upon such A
record we can do nothing but affirm the
case. Affirmed.
mi Coiiey VS., the State; from Cass county,
This Is an appeal from q Judgment of con.
viction for murder OF the second degrees.
Held, the facts upon which the verdict was