The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-02-15

THE HIGHER COURTS.
GALVESTON TERM 1888. /

lGALNk3rON TERM 1888
REPORTED BY ED. j. HAMMER.
Parties desiring information upon matters
concerning the higher courts will receive such
by writing our court reporter at Galvest0n.l
Supreme Court.
Woods VS.. Robinson ct al; appeal
from Lavaca county.-The question
us to what survey the land in contro-
versy, being one of fact it is unneces-
sary to discuss it beyond saying that
it comes within the Neil survey. 1t
being the weakest the call for dis
lance must be controlled by the call
for the Norton survey. [26 Tex. 1853;
30 1dem 257. Where a survey calls
for adjoining grants Astounding it
without dispute as to four sides and
where five corners are established, its
boundaries must be determined by
the calls for such adjacent grants and
by same line run so as to establish the
sixth corner as called for, and from
that corner run the closing lines re-
gardless of course and distance, if nee
essary, so rs to embrace within the
line of patent all the land called for
lying between the grant as CONSTITUTE
ing the other boundaries of such
grant. [46 Tex. 285; AZ Tex. $40, and
authorities there cited.l A call for a
corner ascertained by marked lines in
tersecting at such corner will prevail
over a call for distance and quantity.
| [57 Tex. 33l.l Affirmed.-West, j.
Court Of Appeals.
Starnes VS.. the state; from Smith
county.-Appellant was convicted of
murder of the second degree and SEN
fenced to five years imprisonment in
the penitentiary. Pending this APP
peal, he, with others, escaped from
custody, and, after being pursued some
distance, was recaptured and returned
to prison. The sheriff of Smith
county thereupon makes affidavit of
such above stated fact, and filing such
with this court, the states attorney
comes and moves dismissal of the
appeal for the reason of escape. Held,
| The record bearing the motion out,
and being in strict compliance with
the requirements of the statute, it
must be sustained, and the appeal dis
missed, and it is so ordered. Appeal
dismissed.-White. z. j.
Wicks VS.. state; appeal from Lava
ca county.-This is an appeal from a
judgment of conviction for adultery.
The indictment is in every respect
good and sufficient. The charge of
the court being full, fair and impair
tial, cannot be questioned. The evil
dence is conclusive as to the guilt of
the appellant and we see no error
whatever of which appellant can
complain. Appellant relies for re.
versal upon the error of the court in
refusing to grant new trial on the
ground that the evidence fails to sup
port the verdict in this, that the evil
dence showed, if there was any adulter-
Gus intercourse at all it was while they
lived together and was not without
living together" as charged in the in
dictment. The appellants idea seems
to be that if the parties lived together
they could not be convicted. of habitu-
al carnal intercourse. Held, This pro-
position is wholly untenable. Affirm.
ed.-White, z. j.
Falls vs.. the state; from Tarrant
county.-This is IAN appeal from a
judgment of conviction for the theft
of money of the value of $50 be-
longing to one Reuben Ross. Though
wholly circumstantial, the evidence
to us seems amply sufficient to sup
port the verdict. The Indictment il
i'll all its respects according to estab
lished presidents, and is unobnoXious
to objection. The charge of the court
is full, fair and impartial, and i'll al
its essential requirements meets ouI
approval as correct. The trial was
eminently fair and impartial, and the
appellant cannot justly complain OF
the conviction. A careful eXamina
ton of the record fails to show US any
error whatever committed by the
court, and such being the case, We
cannot but affirm the Judgment. AT
! firmed-Willson, j.
: Boykin VS.. state; from Polk county
: Appellant comes before this court
upon appeal from judgment of con
, viction for manslaughter. The evi
dence showed that deceased had, Oh
the morning before the killing, gone
to the house of appellant and threat
J ened to whip him; that at the time
: just previous to the killing appellant
} came up to where deceased was, wheI
deceased accused him of stealing
, meat from deceased's markethouse
Thereupon appellant called deceased
) a liar, when deceased made an assault
! upon appellant with small piece Of
pine board. Appellant fled, pursued
. by deceased, and upon coming to
gether deceased hit appellant on thu
2 head with the board, when appellant
: drew an old caSe-knife and cut de
2 ceased, from which wound he died
: Held, The evidence amply supports
the verdict. The record fails to dis
: cover to us any error of which appel
liant can complain, and the iudgmen
: is affirmed.-Hurt, j.
Maddox VS.. state; from Milan
county; for this case upon former ap
, peal sec. Is, ct. app. 420.-UpoI
: this appeal appellant seeks t.
reverse the conviction for the thief
of mare belonging to one IsaIcs
2 The charge of the court below upoI
the last trial was fair, impartial ant
without error prejudicial to appel
, lant's rights. While in some respect
the evidence is circumstantial, yet i
is not entirely SO, and amply support
8 the verdict. The indictment is goot
and sufficient in all its respects. Their
( are many assignments of errors taken
: but after most careful scrutiny q
the record, we fail to see that any o
7 them are tenable, or that any erro
, whatever has been committed whicl
; in any way prejudices the appellant
and the judgment is aflirmed.-Hurt
j.
Leediker ct al VS.. Rotts & Co.; iron
Galveston county.-Only one of tn
: defendants has been served with tn
5 petition as citation in error. Held, l
Is expressly required by the statute
9 that if there be more than one a copy
of the citation must be served OF
4 each. REV. Stats. Art. 1895. De
!. PENDANTS being partners does no
affect the question. Service of eta
: ton upon one of several parties, plain
tiffs against whom writ of error ha
e been taken, Is not sufficient. All dc
J. PENDANTS in error must be served. Al
n Tex. 1881 The writ Of error must b.
dismissed unless it appears that al
g defendants in error were cited. Erro
+ will not be considered unless all of tn
parties defendants are properl
d brought before the court. 55 Te1
J. APT; 20 Tex. 604; 20 Tex. 49, Motto
Q to dismiss sustained, and writ OF erro
=, dismissed White. Z. J.
q Folke q Wilkens vs.. Hunt; iron
o Observation-Disclosures sued ap
pellant for the proceeds Of certail