The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-02-01

| AWAkoned by some One IeennE huONt
her person. Upon nwnkenlhgi sue
worked az he hotise where the act WAS
committed. lie had gone TO n party tho
night previous peculiarly dressed, and was
recognized by the child because OF this,
| After the not was committed his coat, vest,
shoes and nat were found In the Kitchen OF
| the house where the assault was COM
mitted This evidence amply supports the
verdict, and as the record shows no error,
tine Judgment 10 affirmed. White, p.
Trr-"ll Va. the state; from Milan county.
| r., :. conviction of the theft of year
| li..s belonging to one Peoples. There, was
| direct evidence as to the guilt Of appellant.
There was proof Of his being caught III the
act OF skinning the yearling Dy parties who
helped TO carry the beefinto the store house:
Their testimony relating to the marx ana
brand is conclusive against appellant. Inc
evidence of appellant is IN direct conillct 10
that of the state, but in itself II conflicts to
that extent as to warrant the jury in ind
ing verdict against him. The record fails
to show in any way an error. The indlct-
ment is sufficient The charge of the court
is unobnoxious, and the judgment must be
affirmed. White, p. j.
Carothers VS.. the State; from Washington
county. This is conviction OF an assault
with intent to murder In the charge OF
the court to the jury, the judge in every
way failed to explain the term malice.
Held, in all cases for assault with intent to
murder, Just as in cases of murder, malice
being an essential element. clear
explanation of the legal Specification
of the term, is part of the law applicable
to the case and the, judge IN ms charge
must give it to the jury. Repeated decls-
ions hold this fundamental error. Babb,
VS.. State; ~ Court OF Appeals, 49l, and
casescited. Reversed and remanded. Will
son, j..
county. 1t is shown that the defendant
had the stolen horse at one Randall's house,
but the evidence fails TO show that thi IS
place is in Washington county. 1t ls
shown that he had the horse in Colorado
county. Held, the venue is not proven.
This defect being prominently called to
the court and insisted upon for new trial,
it should have been granted. 2. q. U.
Dublin was the owner OF the stolen morse.
He loaned it to r.. A. Dublin, who
placed it in Amler's wagon-yard,
| from where the horse was stolen. The
evidence showed that the horse was taken
from the wagon-yard without the consent
of U. G, Dublin, but there is no evidence
negatiying the consent of Il. A. Dublin, or
the person in possession of the horse at the
| time of the taking. But when one person
owns property and another person man,
ages, controls, or cares for 1t, the consent OF
| each of these persons must be proven;
which proof should be made by the persons
themselves, il possible, and if the persons
| are not to be had, their absence should be
accounted for before the state should be al
| lowed to prove their non-consent by cir
cumstantial evidence. Reversed and re-
manded. Wilson, j. ,
Berry ct al. VS.. the state; from DeWltt
county. The error relied upon for re.
yersal of this cause is the insut1iciency oil
the Judgment nisi, as follows: That scire
facias issue commanding y, 10
appear at the next term OF the district
court of Dewitt county, TO be begun ana
holden within and for said county
then and there to show cause why this
Judgment nisi shall not De maze iliial
unless good cause be shown why said de-
PENDANT Il Berry did not appear and
answer said Indictment" Appellants claim
that such words as are after land that scire
facias issue commanding the said 10
appear at the next term" ETC., are simply
instructions as to what the sclre iacias VIII
contain, but that both the scire faclas and
the judgment shall state that the Judgment
will be made final. Held, the objection
urged by appellants is unteDable, aud the
Judgment is affirmed. Hurt, ].
Jerrold vs. the State; from Dlmmitt coun-
ty. See this case on former appea, IL ".
App, 2l9. There is an order OF court IN the
record granting leave to file the statement
of facts within ten days after the ADJOURN
ment OF court, but an inspection OF the
record disclosed the fact that the statement
was not filed as the order required. 1t was,
therefore, improperly in the record, and
cannot be considered by us. The bill OF
exceptions presenting no question III the
absence of a statement of facts, except as
to the sutficiency of the charge OF the court
and the indictment, and they both being
found without blemish the judgment Is
'' Hammers, VS. the State; from Dewitt
county. This is an appeal from conylc,,
ton for warnonly imputing the Want OF
chastity to female. The oiiense was
charged by information and exception
thereto were taken upon the, ground tnst
the words constituting the alleged slander
were not specifically set torth III tne IN
formation. These exceptions were over
ruled and appellant convicted. He'd.
was error in the court refusing to sustain
the exception to the intormauol, In
charging the ohense herein the allege d
slanderous words must be set out substa
tally in the information; az CT; app"
l26. ct. App, 552) Reversed aud dis
Andrews VS.. the State; from Dewitt
county. This is an appeal from a convic-
ton upon charge of aggravated assault.
The information charged that appellant, an
admit male, committed an aggravated as
sanlt upon certain named female. Held,
in order that this conviction be sustained,
II was absolutely necessary that the proof
clearly and conclusively shows that appel
liant was an adult male. A close and care
FL inspection of the record discloses the
fact that the proof is totally in want Of tes-
timony as to whether appellant was. an
adult male or not, and for this omission or
insupiclency OF the evidence, the judgments
Is reversed and remanded. Wilson,
Thomas ct al. VS.. the State; from DE witt
county. A bail bond. in which the princi-
pal and sureties are 'jointly and seyerally
bound" in a specified amount, Will not.
when forfeited, authorize judgment Tor
the full amount of the bond against each OF
the parties bound al Tex, 2l.) But be.
cause this rule was vioiated, IL would not
follow that this court would reverse the
Judgment, but would, under article S39, y.
g, p, refoi N the same and render 1t here.
In the appearance bond, the foundation OF
the action herein, the conditions were that
said Thomas should "be and appear before
the next term Of district court Tor
Dewitt county, 70 De
begun and holden on the 18th day oil
February, 1850 /" etc. When this bond was
executed the statute in force provided that
terms of district court for De Witt county
should be holden ''0n the FIRST Tuesdays IN
March and September and might continue
in session three weeks. The law dld not
authorize the holding of term OF court on
the 18th Of February. The bail BOND nav
ing obligated defendant to appear at term
not authorized by law. was VOID and no le-
gal proceedings could be maintained upon
Isuv,.fa White n 1.