Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-24
COURT DECISIONS.
[oALvrsToN TERM, 1881
Court OF Appeals.

HOUSTON CT NJ, w, UHe -tAte-~f ron
Gonzales county. Opinion by VIII
son, J.. a proceeding upon forfeited
bail bond Is IN effect suit upon til
bond, In which the scirc facias serve
the purpose Of both u petition and ci
tati0n. IT. foundation Is the bond an,
the judicial declaration of the forfeit
ure Of the bind, which Is the iudg
ment nisI 10 entitle the state to
judgment final, IL must prove tn,
cause OF action az in n civil suit Tn,
proof Is made by: l.. The bond ant
2. The Judgment nisi declaring It's for
fixture. In this case the judgment
nisi was not introduced in evidence
and therefore the proof IL insufficient
To support the judgment final, and fol
this reason the judgment must be re.
yersed. Reversed and renianded
The state Of Texas vs. Willis AIRING.
ton and X. a. Houston Appeal from
Gonzales county. Opinion By White,
y. j. In this cause mn appeal Is
sought to be taken by the state from a
judgment of the court below quashing
u bail bond. The appelleeo come aud
by motion filed move the court to dis
miss the appeal, because the case is Il
criminal case, and the state Is pro-
hibited ~ appeal In such eases. I'm
der previous decisions OF the supreme
court and,of this court the motion is
well taken and must be sustained.
tConst. ART, 5, sec. ~; Of the state w.
Ward, ., Ct. App, l89, and authOrl-
ties cited. Hart vs.. State, in this
issuo.) Appeal dismissed.
Arlington ct nj. VS.. the State From
Gonzales county. Opinion by Wilson,
J. The court erred in admitting the
bail bond in evidence. The bond
shows on its face TINT ii was taken and
approved by constable in Gonzales
county while the bond declared upon
In tho scre tacins IL described rs one
taken by the sheriff Of Ganzales coun-
ty. Held, u sclre lacias performs the
double functions of petition aud eta
ton and in establishing the essential
matters therein the allegata and pro-
bata must correspond Appellants
clam thut The bond is void because il
was talyh by the constable while the
court before which the prosecti-
ton tas pending was in SEES
sion. Z. G. T., art a0i. 1t was proved
that tiSe bond was taken and APP
provo by the constable In open court,
and tSat thereupon the defendant was
discharged from custody aud left be-
fore re court adjourned. Under this
state bf iucts 1t Is held1 hat it must be
presumed that the bond was taken
with she knowledge and sanction Of
the court, and was in legal contempa-
ton titten by the court. There Is no
provispt OF the statute which requires
That thd court should approve the
bond, Jan the statute requires Is that
the boSd shall be signed by the priuci-
,i.t 10,
iirat beng satisfied ~ 10 the sulti-
cheney of the security. nc. G.. r., art.
az Reversed and remanded.
Houston Is. the State From Con
tales county Three cases. Opinion
by Wilson, j. 1t was proper for the
county court to render and enter
Judgments final upon the Judgment
nisih Il civi! term of said court This
IL contrary Ia the decision IN Cnssudy
vs.. the state, n CT. App, SO; Carter
W. ihe state, ID s&I5;. aud Willis Va.
theState; ld. Ga. but those decis.
ions were rendered before the ndop-
tiGl of the Revised Code of Criminal
Procedure, ana in view OF the changes
made IN that code, are no longer mp
plicnble. As the law now Is, the
docket iterAudgment nisi, and il Is
ptoper practice to henr and examine
scire lascie nj - civil instead of at Il
criminal term of the court, Affirmed
Arlington et al. vs.. the State. ~ From
Gonzales county. Opinion by Wilson
/ j. Defendant was arrested under n
: warrant issued by Il Justice of the
4 peace, of Dewitt county, founded an.
on complaint charging him with a
felony committed In Gonzales county,
land the warrant wns made rcturnable
before the county Judge OF the latter
county, but the examination of tho
clse was had before Justice of the
peace or Gonzales county. Hold, not
error because the Justice of the peac,
was a magistrate and had jurisdiction
10 near anu determine the case ms an
examining court. II Is objected to tho
pond, that IL fails To set out any
oitense against the law and does no,
set out the same oilense as named In
the complaint, In the bond the of.
Tense IL stated TO be theft of neat cat.
tie, n the complaint defendant IL
charged with stealing "one two-yoal
on steer and two yearlingsn Held
THEFT of cattleN IL an oiiGnse against
the law of this state and the use of tho
adJecuNe neat does not affect tn,
character OF the act, and besides MI
. N'''N'N W v 'ANtsN ttthits i lItll III " Steer
ana yenrlings would be theft of cattle,
and hence there IL no variance be-
tween the oilenso named In the com
plaint and that named in the bond
and subsequent proceedings. Affirmed.
Esther vs.. the state. ~ From Cass
county Opinion by White, j. p.
Without Il bill OF exceptions this court
has no authority To revise the action
OF the lower court in any matter per,
tanning To the rulings OF the court in
overruling applications for confirm.
ance. With the evidence as itappears
IN the statement OF facts, there was no
error committed by the court In de.
Ginning To charge upon a lower grade
ot ofiense than murder IN the second
degree. Neyland vs.. state, 10 Tcxa.
Law Review. Complaint h made
mat the court erred in overriding de.
PENDANTS motion for n new trial based
IN part upon newly discovered
evidence. II the witness Mc(;lus.
Key WAS present at the difficulty then
defendant must have known OF could
easily have ascortained the fact, and II
he know on could have known hv or
binary care and effort the met, then
the evidence does not come within the
rules ot newly discovered testimony.
nor does the defendant show such diff.
gencc as would entltle him 10 4 new
tfial upon this ground. Affirmed