The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-10
THE STATE COURTS.


| Calvert vs.. the State; from Jack county.
Opinion by Hurt, ]. Conviction for
disturbing congregation assembled
Tor religious worship. charged to
have been done by "cursing and swearing
in a loud and vociierous manner" The
state, over objections, was allowed TO ask
the prosecuting witness WAS the manner
In which defendant spoke when he called
you d----n liar calculated to disturb the
congregation Witness answered. at was
In manner calculated to disturb the as.
sembed congregation" Held The oh.
iections to the question and answer should
have been sustained, for under the
facts in this case the evidence may have
had material weight in influencing the
Hiding OF the Jury, The court also erred
In refusing 10 allow this same witness 10
answer the question, why was 1t that de
PENDANT called you d--n liar2 what had
you done or said 2 Reversed aud re-.
manded
Peterson va. the state from Tom Green
county. Opinion by White, p. /. convic.
ton tor assault with intent to rape. The
evidence shows most wauton unprovoked
and outrageous assault by appellant with
ont any apparent motive. Yet it fails to
show the intent and motive was rape
The prosecuting witness says while he
shaken, and struck her, he
did not try to throw
me down, nor did he try to pull up my
clothing" The evidence being too uncer-
tain aud unsatisfactory TO warrant us in
permitting this conviction tor an assault
with intent TO rape to stand rs precedent.
Reversed and Remandcd.
Wolf VS.. the state; from Falls county.
Opinion by White, y. j. A fraudulent in.
tent is the essential ingredient of THEFT
tnt via "a nj lao, al, q. H..
taking. The taking must be an actual
and intendet fraud upon the rights OF
another; the taking mast include the
purpose aud intent to deiraud; IL
must be an intentional taking
without the consent of the owner, an inten-
tional fraud and an Intentional appropria.
ton. Where the evidence, as in this case
shows that defendant took the coon in
question to Pay himself for what he con-
sdered the prosecuting witness owed him,
without his consent and in his absence, 4"
there is no theft shown. Reversed and re-
manded.
from Bosque county. Opinion by Wilson,
j, A proceeding upon forfeited bail bond
is a criminal" and not "civil" action,
the state is not entitled to new trial, aud
III such case, where Judgments rem.
dered in favor of the defendant
1t is conclusive, and terminates
the suit finally. II the original forfeiture,
or Judgment ins was defective, the county
attorney should have had the same
amended, before proceeding TO trial upon
II. After trial and verdict and Judgment
Tor defendants, further proceedings were
coram non JUDGE and void. Reversed and
dismissed.
Perry ct al VS.. the State, from Coleman
nn'ninn AS N,llvny I
ord shows this case was tiled before, aud
the Judgment appealed from
porting to be Judge OF the
District court of the judicial district iuclud.
ing Coleman county. This court judicially
knows that Hon. w. A Blackburn was
Judge of said district at the time of the trial
of this cause, and further that there was no
Judge of the district court in this state at
the time OF said trial whose name was
White. Held In the absenc, of the showing
In the record that the cause was tried and
snd Judgment rendered by Judge having
lawful uihority and qualified TO act in
nat capacity, we must treat the Judgment
AS nullity and reverse ii. (McMurray vs.,
the state, . CT, App. aO6; Brinkley &
Harkins. Is Tex. 295) Reversed and dis.
missed.
ralland VS., the State; from Bell county.
Opinion by White, y. !, one of the statu.
tory elements in the definition of theft is
that that the fraudulent taking was WITH
intent to deprive the owner OF the value OF
the property taken r. G. Art. 80 An
indictment must charge explicitly, all
that is essential to constitute the offence.
and cannot DO aided by amendments" II
CT. App. @5) To constitute theft, there
must be u specific intent TO deprive the
owner of his ownerehip in the thing taken,
aud under our codes this ,n,cn,
must be- alleged. The information failing
to charge That the property was stolen"
with intent to deprive the owner of the
value, is fatally defective, Reversed and
dismissed,
Wilson VS., the State; from Brown county.
Opinion by Wilson,, ltappears from the
record that the case was tried before a
special Judge, but II does not appear IN
what manner such judge was selected, nor
that he was sworn Ms such Judge rs Is re.
Quired by law. Held These facts must
be shown by the record before this court
can sanction the conviction. Reversed and
remanded.
q