The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-04-14

after the appeals we're taken, and There
being no .aw to enforce these convictions
they are reversed.and dismissed. Will
son, i,
Jones ys.the State; iron Lamar county and
Eadlesleln vs. the olate IRON Lamar county
Opinions byNilsoni These cases being SIM
silar TO the above case OF Frees vs. the State
the opinion IN that case appllesto this, and
the judgments are reversed and dismissed.
klncard VS.. Matthews; from Collin
county. Judgment was recovered in the
Justices court for SO, aud upon appeal To
the county court the Judgment rendered
was Tor $50. Appellees move TO dismiss
The appeal because the amount IN conlro-
versy Is less than 500, and this court has
no jurisdiction. Held the motion must be
sustained. Appeal dismissed. White,p. i.
Burns VS.. the state, from Cooke county
The following charge upon selideiease is
held good and sufficient: Every person has
the legal and lawful right to defend himself
against the unlawful attacks OF another,
| and If YOU believe. from the evidence, that
at the time the assault was made al any
! was made at all the defendant was acting
In seli-deiense, or that from the clrcum'
| stances, or acts OF said SCanland, he, the
defendant, had reasonable grounds for fear
OF death, or some serious bodily injury
from said Scanland, you will acQuit him.
Affirmed. White. p. J.
WomaCk vs.. Rose; from Lamar county.
Suit by Rose in justices court on account,
Judgment for WomaCk on plea in recon
vcntion for Sll. On appeal to the county
court, Judgment was rendered for Rose.
| The question presented was, whether or not
the claim had natured at the date of suit,
| Held this question was one tor the jury 10
| determine, and their verdict being sus'
tanned by the evidence, the judgment is
affirmed. White, p.j.
Houston d Texas Central railway vs.
Iraylor ct al, from Grayson county. sun
| by appellee for damages caused
| by the train moving after II
had stopped, and while she was
ulighting thereirom. Held heing purely n
question of fact and the verdict Ol the jury
being sustained by the evidence the iudg-
ment is affirmed. White, ".
Anderson VS.. the State from DallasCOunty.
Evidence OF which the injured party sand
to Il third party not being res geSlr, but
being res inter altos dcta, aud not being IN
the presence or hearing OF the accused is al.
misslble evidence against him. "ln all
kinds ofthelt from the person, ownership OF
the property; and the want OF consent oi the
owner to the taken, must be clearly proven,
as alleged Reversed and fciuandru.
White, p. !.
Day VS.. the State; from Denton county,
Where the Statute makes 1t penal to do
this or that, mentioning several things dis
junCtively, an indictment, or information,
may, IN single count, embrace I'll the pro
hibited acts by charging them conlunct-
ively.' In miSdemcanOTs, the lolnder of
several offences in the same indictment OF
information, will not in general ylllato II in
any stage OF the proceedings. Where the
report of the Jury of review describes a
road different from the one actually laid
out. and used aud recognized rs the true
road, the latter must be considered the
true road until authoritatiyely discon-
tinucd Reversed and remanded, Will
son, J.
Fulton ct al, VS., the State; from nonton
county. A return of nh officer is INSULT
ccnt in forfeited bail bond cases when II
fails to show that copy OF the citation was
served upon each of the defendants. Where
ssreties are bound in the full amount OF
the bond because they are held Jointly
and severallyn bound in the bond does not
make IL more oner0us but where they are
bound for different amounts the bond viii
be held void, because more onerous; Is
Tex. Law Review, 75) Reversed ANA To.
NlAuolls vs. bIauci', iulh iiuuat Vuuuty
Articles IS, S9i, S9j aud SG unquestionably
confer upon mayors and recorders OF incor |
porated cities and towns the same jursidic |
ton as is conferred upon justices OF the |
peace, and these articles are constitutional |
and are not In conflict with sections |, Is |
Is ami ID OF the constitution. Reversed |
and dismissed. Wilson, ].
Myers vs. the state, irom Collin county. |
The witnesses i'll the case az necessary prop |
erly qualified themselves as experts before |
tostiiying as to the gun being recently dis
charged. The testimony OF the footprints
lnd the fact that boot OF appellant lifted |
.hesc prints were proper evidence. Affirmed.
White, p. |.